A Writers Whine or Rather Joss Whedon states, if we are honest, what all writers feel at some point.

[shadowkat]

So, I watched Doctor Horrible's Sing A Long Blog on DVD last night, courtesy of my brother who gave it to me as a Xmas gift. It's a lot better on DVD than online. I've come to the conclusion that tv shows and movies on my computer don't work well for me. I have no clue how people watch things on their ipods or iphones. Honestly, just watching a 43 minute film on my 14 inch screen gives me a headdache. Either you don't spend your days writing on a computer, or you don't get headaches easily???

Anyhow, I also listened to the Commentary - The Musical for the first time. (This may be the most self-deprecating creative humorous collabortive endeavor I've heard. They make fun of DVD commentary, including their own, and say some pithy and profound things about how we view entertainment and media today. I was surprised. All I'd heard were Nate and Neil's songs prior to this...and trust me, they aren't the good songs.)

The one below is a song written and performed by Joss Whedon. It's about well what happens now in the age of information, of the internet, where fans can interact with writers, after you write a story and put it out there for everyone to see. How they deal with it, and how you deal with them. In short guys, it's about the relationship between the writer and his/her critics and fans. Also, whether or not you liked Dr. Horrible, you might want to read these lyrics. I found them rather insightful and thought provoking particularly in relation to the comics, Dollhouse, and Whedon's current work, even if Whedon and his family freely admit he is whining and are making fun of himself for doing so. Stating that...all of this is part of the gig.
Without it, you wouldn't have a fanbase or a living. Tis the price you pay, Dude!

Yet, I sympathize with Whedon. I know what it is like for someone to ask - why did you write that? Or do you really do that??? Or don't you think THAT will send a negative message? And what came before that point? You need to give us an explanation, some background! Writing is easy, sharing it can be brutal, yet the whole point of writing is sharing it. Was it easier before readers could easily tell writers what they thought? Before the net gave reader's instant access to writers and vice versa? Should we envy Homer or the Cave Painter - who just got ooos and ahhhs?

And at the same time, I realize I am amongst the very fans that pick, pick at his writing. I overanalyze it. Hunt meaning in it - where there very well may be none. I pick it. Rail it. And love every moment of doing so. If I can't interact with the art - what is the point of the art? It is how I love it. Which I think he realizes... because he does the same thing. We all do.

At any rate, long story short, the below made me smile last night. So enjoy.


11. HEART, BROKEN

Music and Lyrics by Joss Whedon
Performed by Joss Whedon


A CAVEMAN PAINTED ON A CAVE
IT WAS A BISON, WAS A FAVE
THE OTHER CAVE-PEOPLE WOULD RAVE –
THEY DIDN’T ASK “WHY?”
WHY PAINT A BISON IF IT’S DEAD
WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE THE COLOR RED
WHAT WAS THE PROCESS IN YOUR HEAD
HE TOLD THEIR STORY
WHAT CAME BEFORE HE DIDN’T SHOW
WE’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO


HOMER’S ODYSSEY WAS SWELL
A BUNCH OF GUYS THAT WENT THROUGH HELL
HE TOLD THE TALE BUT DIDN’T TELL
THE AUDIENCE WHY
HE DIDN’T SAY, HERE’S WHAT IT MEANS
AND HERE’S A FEW DELETED SCENES
CHARYBDIS TESTED WELL WITH TEENS
HE’S NOT THE STORY
HE’S JUST A DOOR WE OPEN IF
OUR LIVES NEED LIFTING

BUT NOW WE PICK PICK
PICK PICK PICK IT APART
OPEN IT UP TO FIND THE
TICK TICK TICK OF A HEART
A HEART, BROKEN

IT’S BROKEN BY THE ENDLESS LOADS
OF MAKING-OFS AND MOBISODES
THE TIE-INS, PREQUELS, GAMES AND CODES
THE AUDIENCE BUYS
THE NARRATIVE DIES
STRETCHED AND TORN
HEY, SPOILER WARNING:

WE’RE GONNA PICK PICK
PICK PICK PICK IT APART
OPEN IT UP TO FIND THE
TICK TICK TICK OF A HEART
A HEART, BROKEN


Jed:
JOSS, WHY DO YOU RAIL AGAINST THE BIZ
YOU KNOW THAT’S JUST THE WAY IT IS
YOU’RE MAKING EVERYBODY MIZ


Zack:
THESE OUT-OF-DATE PHILOSOPHIES
ARE FOR THE DINNER TABLE, PLEASE
WE HAVE TO SELL SOME DVD’S


Jed, Maurissa, Zack:
WITHOUT THESE THINGS YOU SPIT UPON
YOU’D FIND YOUR FAME AND FANBASE GONE


Maurissa:
YOU’D BE IGNORED AT COMIC-CON

Joss:
I SANG SOME THINGS I DIDN’T MEAN
OKAY, LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS SCENE
I THINK IT’S GREAT HOW RYAN GREEN -
OH THIS IS NO GOOD
I THOUGHT J-MO WOULD BACK MY PLAY
NOW ZACK AND THEY ALL SAY

WE’RE GONNA PICK PICK
PICK PICK PICK YOU APART
OPEN YOU UP AND STOP THE
TICK TICK TICK OF A HEART

A HEART…

Comments

[rahirah]

I heard that song on Whedon's NPR interview a few months ago and I thought it was brilliant - but at the same time, totally alien, because I LOVE talking about my own work, and am only prevented from doing so constantly by the unfortunate fact that it would bore everyone else to tears.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Word. I agree, I do enjoy talking about the process.

I get the feeling that maybe for Whedon he thinks it's the creator's job to create and then step aside. Because you create the work, but you shouldn't create the work and then explain how people should be experiencing and interpreting it. Like the beauty of art is in its mystery and the endless possibilities of reader's interpretation and how it informs the artwork.

For some reason, it reminds me of that old noble staple that you don't talk about money in refined company. There's something about the silence.

Or maybe it's that the writer already got their turn when they wrote the piece so it's the readers job to interpret it. If the writer does it, then the reader has lost a part of his or her role.

[rahirah]

Because you create the work, but you shouldn't create the work and then explain how people should be experiencing and interpreting it.

*snort* Except, of course, when half his audience interprets his work in a way he didn't intend...

[tigerpetals.livejournal.com]

Because he can't resist. I'm not a proper writer yet, but if I ever get published I dread having to interact with fans, having them asking questions about the work. I wouldn't be able to resist answering and arguing back because it's about something precious to me, something mine, but I'd get very tired and it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience. I've already endured that frustation in a workshop, in which the constructive criticism extended to interpreting what my writing meant and trying to get me to change it so that it would express what they thought it was supposed to be expressing.

I much prefer the death of the author thing. You can interact with the art and that's fine. Interacting with the creator is something different, it's about wanting there to be a correct interpretation for you to understand, and that really isn't necessary, and I don't know what purpose it would serve.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

James Joyce used to tell interviewers who asked him what he meant or what the inner meaning of his work was - "whatever you see in it, that's what I meant."
And the writer of The Kite Runner - stated, I prefer not to tell you what I meant by such and such metaphor...because whatever you come up with will probably be far better and I'll disappoint you when I tell it just sounded cool at the time.

There's two types of criticism - constructive - 1)where the reader tells you how your story could be improved,
about pacing, or plot holes, or the fact that a certain character didn't pop enough or needs a bit more explanation, or that they got lost or confused and maybe you could clarify?
2) the other is unconstructive - where they tell you that you should have written a murder mystery instead of say a comtemporary edgy literary. That the story should begin with a murder - have the character find a body, instead of having the character contemplating suicide. Where they tell you that such and such character is pathetic and they hate them and why can't you have do something. (That's unconstructive criticism.)

A lot of people don't know how to do concrit. I've noticed this with bloggers and some prof critics - who will blast a romance novel for well being a romance novel with sex scenes. Or blast a action thriller -for having graphic violence. Or they'll get upset if the story isn't what they are in the mood for - ie. they picked up a sappy romance when they were in the mood for a thriller. Not the novelist's fault.

Also, concrit and reviews are different. When I review a fic or analyze one in my blog, it really isn't concrit, it's my opinion. I normally don't post it to the writer, because I see no need to impose my view or review on them (well that and I tend to be wordy and the comments boxes limit the number of words I can write on the topic). If they choose to go to my blog to read it? I'm flattered. Concrit...on the other hand is where you are helping the writer become better.
You are telling them how they can improve, finding both their strengths and weaknesses, what worked and did not work for you as a reader. When done well? It's invaluable. When done poorly, it makes you want to pull your hair out repeatedly.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee, if you spend any time on whedonesque - just imagine what it would be like to be Whedon reading whedonesque. One time a poster blasted Marti Noxon for her writing in Grey's, Mad Men, and Buffy - stating she ruined Buffy and the series, specifically with Seeing Red. Whedon read the thread - and responded, shocking everyone, and getting the original poster booted off the board. It was a fascinating exchange.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

It's actually quite an interesting power dynamic at play there. Whedon very rarely steps down from on high to directly interact in that manner and the one time I can remember him trying to steer interpretation was back during Season 3 when he told fans there was no Buffy/Faith subtext only to be directed to meta analyzing it that led him to retract his statement and go "huh, guess there is." I do wonder if that wasn't a huge learning experience for him in the power of reader's interpretation.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I've seen him interact here and there. All the writers interacted on Bronze Beta - which was the predecessor to whedonesque. Not sure if Whedonesque existed when S3 aired, but I wasn't online back then, so wouldn't know. I don't remember seeing it until late 2003...but it may have been around earlier.

He tries to stay out of it - no time. Also he's learned from others mistakes. Fury used to get into fights with fans, as did Minear who jumped on Angel's Soul to defend the inclusion of Spike in S5 Angel. (Angel fans were convinced that Spike would ruin "Angel" and must be kept off at all costs. Never understood why.) Whedon tries to stay out of it. More than one famous writer has gotten themselves in trouble entering into a kerfuffle over their work with fans. (Most famously Anne Rice on Amazon.com and there was someone else recently ...who I forget.) Best not to interact at all...breaking that fourth wall can be hazardous to one's professional health.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Here is a bad video of Joss performing a very slightly alternative version of 'Pick Pick' at the This American Life simulcast last year:



(guaranteed to be headache producing... but I'm just glad someone recorded it)

For the record my computer is bigger than my old TV was, so it is actually easy to watch, so long as I don't sit too close while watching a long show.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks. But why does the back of his head look like someone squashed it?
Very bizarre looking video.

I guess that's what you meant by headache inducing?;-)

It's a great commentary track. I got to give him credit - he got bored of commentaries and chose to have fun with it.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

the bizarro warping of Joss' head is because someone was sitting to the side in the theater and illegally video taping it.... I think that 'This American Life' may have put out a DVD of the evening by now, but I still haven't found a nice clean copy of Joss' performance anywhere.

And yeah, that is what I meant that it would for sure cause headaches... but it is such a pleasure to listen to (at least to me).

Joss gives great commentary - it is the main reason I must own all his DVDs - but it is part of his sense of humor/intelligence that he can see all the down sides to commentaries. The work SHOULD stand on it's own, and it does.... But it doesn't mean we don't want to discuss ie pick pick pick) the work (in fact I only want to dissect work that I love, I don't even want to rewatch all the other, unloved, stuff!)!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Joss gives great commentary - it is the main reason I must own all his DVDs - but it is part of his sense of humor/intelligence that he can see all the down sides to commentaries. The work SHOULD stand on it's own, and it does.... But it doesn't mean we don't want to discuss ie pick pick pick) the work (in fact I only want to dissect work that I love, I don't even want to rewatch all the other, unloved, stuff!)!

Agreed.

And I only pick at work that I love too. You'll rarely see me review or discuss something that I was ambivalent about or disliked. Why bother? If I love it or it hits me in some major way?
I pick it at it. Often I have love/hate relationships with stuff - I adore one part and hate another. Read a fanfic recently which I loved part of, and really really hated another part of. Had to pick it to death - just to figure out which part compelled me and I loved and which I hated to pieces. Do the same thing with Whedon.

Stories that cause that reaction in me - love and hate, are the ones I can't let go of for the longest time and remember the most.
And that I pick at too death. ;-)

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there would be no point in picking apart something that means nothing to you, but when something moves you deeply (or annoys you a lot) then you can't help but want to rewatch/reread and think about why.... You learn more about yourself by learning more about the things that effect you (or at least I feel I do).

I find Joss' work to be so accessible, and then often his commentaries open up even more to me (the commentary to 'Objects in Space' is an all time favorite, so I'm glad he didn't just leave that one to speak for itself...).

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I listened to the commentary a week ago or so and this song really stuck out. I agree with the others that it's fun to talk about your own work, but I guess really only to a point. And Joss has reached that point a while ago.

His work is analyzed so often and sometimes in ways that must make his hair hurt. You can't make a joke without ten people finding ten different meanings in it.

Mark Twain would have hated it. But it's just one side of the coin, for me there's fun in the analysis too and I'd bet so is for Joss for the things he fans.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I listened to the commentary a week ago or so and this song really stuck out. I agree with the others that it's fun to talk about your own work, but I guess really only to a point. And Joss has reached that point a while ago.

The commentary really states in a nutshell - why I stopped listening to commentaries on DVD's a while back. Because most of the writers/directors/actors can't remember what they did, have no clue how to explain their process and spend the majority of the commentary congratulating each other.

And agreed. I think it might have been enjoyable to do the commentary on say Innocence. But if you consider how many commentaries Whedon has done by now, how many interviews, how many explanations he's given regarding his work...oh my ghod. I think he has explained the scene in Chosen twenty times now. It's been picked to the point that there's nothing left but bones.


His work is analyzed so often and sometimes in ways that must make his hair hurt. You can't make a joke without ten people finding ten different meanings in it.

Hee, so true. Sometimes jokes should be taken at face value and not analyzed. The analysis kills the humor.

And yep, so true...Mark Twain would have hated it, and probably written a joke about it much the same way Whedon just did. Twain was, like Whedon, controversial in his comedy. Banned by lots of people.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I dunno, it seems to me that the lyrics are complaining less about fan impulses themselves and more about the pressure from publishers/distributors to satisfy them with work-in-progress material and explanations.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think it is a little bit of both. The pressure to explain his work, to argue with, to defend it, etc.

The thing of it is? We can't possibly know how someone is going to interpret what we write. And half the time, we don't know what we intended when we wrote it - at least in the case of fiction. Most writers like Whedon - are telling a story, they are thinking - oh is this going to be a good feminist message? Or oh...what is the moral or theme? They are thinking - okay how do I get my heroine/hero/protagonist from point A to B, and what motivates her/him to go from point A to B.

I think a good percentage of writers, especially Whedon, write intuitively - which means they don't think about the things that they are asked to explain in DVD commentaries. When they are asked what their process is - they are like, uh, I don't know, I just write it. I don't really think about it all that much.

I bet Whedon has many weird moments scanning whedonesque. ;-)