(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Things amusing me at the moment:

1. Lost - was actually enjoyable this week. Not a lot happened. They are basically building up to the grand finale. So a lot is being rushed. This happens a lot on tv shows, they spend a lot of time telling us what we already know, then rushing on the more interesting, end-game points. Making me wonder about the huge disconnect between writers and viewers of their work? I've been seeing this a lot lately. May write more later. But bed calls. So no time. Lost- still feels a bit a like a funky and somewhat failed logic game to me, plot-wise, but explaining why requires a lot more brain energy than I really want to expend at the moment.

2. Buffy/Angel Comic Fandom has exploded over how the comic book writers are currently depicting their beloved and favorite characters. This is by the way is not a new phenomena nor limited to Buffy fandom or comics, specifically. I've seen similar explosions over soap opera characters, X-men comics, literary characters, and film characters. Does anyone remember how fandom wanted to tar and feather George Lucas for ruining Star Wars with the introduction of Jar Jar Binks, the re-editing of the prior films, and how he ret-conned Han Solo? Or how about Arthur Conan Doyle who got raked over the coals for daring, daring, to kill of Sherlock Holmes? Want to something even nuttier? Fans of Dorothy Dunnett's Chronicles of Lymond - initially refused to finish the last novel, Checkmate, and wrote angry letters to the writer - because they were convinced she'd killed the title character. (This boggled my mind. The final chapter was three pages long. And it was revealed that he was alive on the first page. All they had to do was turn the frigging page. Presumed dead on one side, alive on the next. It's not about being spoiled. Geeze. If you've made it through 800 pages of a book and only have three to go...or that very least, read ahead. Clearly not everyone has common sense.) And do not get me started on adaptations of novels - the fan outrage over the Keira Knightly Pride & Prejudice is legendary. Personally, I liked the film, but shhhh...don't tell them that.

Note to writers - most of your readers (there are exceptions of course but not many) really don't give a shit about you, they care about the fictional characters you have written or are taking over from someone else, and more to the point what you are doing with them. Take on a beloved fictional character at your peril dear writer - even if you created it, because now that character lives inside your fans imaginations and they will fight for the character's rights. If they don't like what you are doing, watch out. Wait? What? You thought they were your fans??? HAH! Noooo, you poor deluded soul, you don't exist - except as the Godlike creator to rail against and rescue their beloved character from. If you died, they might shake their heads in remorse, but only because your fictional character may have died with you. It's a rare writer who has fans who follow him and not his characters.

Have to admit am rather amused by the flailing at Willingham. (It's regarding his treatment of Spike, which bothers others more than it does me for some reason. Maybe because I find it really hard to take any of it seriously or Willingham for that matter - be a bit like I don't know taking Sarah Palin or Rush Lumbaugh or Glenn Beck seriously - much better to ignore the blowhards of the world, don't you think? If you ignore them, they will eventually go away. And all it's doing is making me happy I gave up on the IDW comics until Lynch comes back.) I don't like Willingham. He's a misogynistic bastard who thinks women are toys for his pleasure. Think Rush Lumbaugh but as a comic book geek, and you get my drift. I couldn't make it through Fables. Which was odd, since I happen to love stuff like that. So - Willingham even went past my limits of endurance. Bought first issue of Angel that he wrote? And promptly threw it out. Crap on a stick. Boring. And Spike was barely in that one. Bad dialogue. Sloppy art. And bad characterization. Not worth my time or money. Plus the guy is an ass. Sorry, buddy, you're never gonna be Alan Moore. You just don't have the stones.

Whedon, I've a bit more respect for, even if his comics currently feel like the twisted brain child of Salvadore Dali and Alan Moore on Crack. Whedon is not an ass. A bit whiny perhaps...but no worse than Russell T Davies or any number of other sucessful tv writers that I can think of. Brad Meltzer on the other hand - is an ass, and sort of falls within Willingham territory. And I still prefer Franco Urru to George Jeanty as an artist and a person, even if Jo Chen kicks both their asses to hell and back in the artistic department. Hire more women artists fellas! You'll have more readers. Trust me.

3. Glee - enjoyable episode about Madonna - which even Madonna appreciated. Don't see why not - was quite the homage. Also highly satirical - which is Madonna in some ways. Main impression though? Madonna's music really does sound all alike. That's the problem with Madonna - you listen to a tape of it and you feel like you've listened to the same melody just with different arranging and words for fifty minutes. There's no chang-up. No variation. Don't get me wrong, I like Madonna, quite a bit actually. But...she's not as good a musician/songwriter as she is a performer. That said - rather loved some of the renditions. Missed the one I really really wanted to see - the butch boys singing "What it Feels Like to be A Girl" - because American Idol went too long, so as a result, I got ten minutes of American Idol and lost ten minutes of Glee. Ugh. Oh well, it will be repeated at some point. Or it will appear on youtube. Other main impression? Ryan Murphy really has been reading people's blogs on Glee. (He said they were reading people's blogs on Glee and taking their fans suggestions on how to better the series to heart.) Until this episode, I didn't believe him. But it was obvious here - the shout-outs to female empowerment and how men view it as being all about them, and all about sex, and their getting sex - was quite amazing. Also there's a whole bit about how being a virgin is not a bad thing or something to be embarrassed about. And causal sex not the best thing ever! Hollywood? TV writers everywhere??? Please take notes. Thank you.

Comments

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

DO you have any idea about when the Willingham Angel arc is going to be over? I had the exact same reaction as you did to the first issue, and haven't bought any issues since.

twisted brain child of Salvadore Dali and Alan Moore on crack.

Hee... at least they aren't boring, are they? BTW, did you catch my April 15th toon? Some comments you and other Buffy fans have made recently combined with a bad reaction from reading a John Stossel opinion piece that morning kind of got me in the mood for some toonical wackiness.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

DO you have any idea about when the Willingham Angel arc is going to be over? I had the exact same reaction as you did to the first issue, and haven't bought any issues since.

No idea. But I'm guessing sometime this summer. IDW's arcs don't tend to last that long. I know Lynch's Spike Unlimited series will be premiering sometime after Willingham's Angel run ends, or so I'm told. And that they have zip to do with one another. Apparently Lynch wasn't that crazy about what Willingham was doing, and chose to take another route or he just didn't think their stories fit. Also know that Bill Williams is doing his own Spike book - be curious how well it does, the Spike fans apparently hate Williams and Willingham.

As far as IDW goes? I only read Brian Lynch's Spike comics. I ignore everything else. To me, it's only worth reading if Lynch writes it.

Hee... at least they aren't boring, are they? BTW, did you catch my April 15th toon? Some comments you and other Buffy fans have made recently combined with a bad reaction from reading a John Stossel opinion piece that morning kind of got me in the mood for some toonical wackiness.

No, I didn't. Won't show up at work. Should go back and check.

Sorry about all the whinging on the Buffy comics - I know you are still enjoying them. I did write a meta based on your idea of the Rorasch Picture - because it stuck in my head. Did that for the folks on my flist who are enjoying them. I keep reminding myself that we each look for different things in a story, and we don't all experience it the same way and this is a wonderful thing.

[shapinglight]

I share your opinion of Willingham. I quite enjoyed the first few Fables stories, but he lost me when we got to the Arabian Nights story.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep, I think that's when I gave up on Fables. Enjoyed the first volumn, could not read the second - and ended up giving them away.

I'm waiting for Brian Lynch to come back with his Spike miniseries - which he apparently is NOT linking to Willingham's story or Whedon's in any way. Outside of the cover art. Very happy about that. Because I'd like to have another Spike story. I'm skipping Bill Williams take on the character - not because I find it offensive, so much, as merely dull and repetitive. I've read too much noir fiction in my life-time, and Williams version of Spike reminds me a bit of Frank Miller's Sin City. And well, Miller's a better writer.

[elisi]

Note to writers - most of your readers (there are exceptions of course but not many) really don't give a shit about you, they care about the fictional characters you have written or are taking over from someone else, and more to the point what you are doing with them.
Truer words have never been spoken. Although I want to point out that there is a difference between doing something to the characters that the fans don't like, and writing them OOC. I can cope with the former (no matter how much it might hurt), but can't abide the latter.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Although I want to point out that there is a difference between doing something to the characters that the fans don't like, and writing them OOC..

Sigh. If only we all had the same interpretation of a character or agreed on what that character would act like in any given situation, what they'd say etc - life would be sooo much easier, boring, but easier. Oh sure, we can all agree that he's a vampire, killed in 1880s, by Drusilla, and joined Fanged Four, killed two slayers, and fell in love with Buffy who up until mid-S5, he was trying to kill. But regarding his motivations? Whether he was a hero at the end? If Buffy loved him too? Etc? Mileage varies.

What may be OOC to you, is completely in character for someone else, and vice versa. For quite a few people online, Angel's actions as Twilight are completely in character - they've written exhaustive posts on the topic. While others vehementally disagree.

It's possibly worth pointing out, as an example, londonkds comment below on Spike - which more or less proves that everyone interprets these characters differently. He sees Spike very differently than you do. And I, well, I see him differently than both of you and I'm rather wedded to my take on the character since I've expended so much time writing essays about him. LOL! But, I've grown weary over time of endlessly debating what he might or might not do, or whose interpretation is the most accurate with some fan on the internet whose view of the character is based on their own personal experiences and ideologies and values and interests - which may or may not, most often not, fit or intersect with mine. I mean seriously...there's no winning there.
You just find yourself going around in an endless loop.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I guess I make a strong difference between an author and his work ever since reading books from previous centuries and finding out that some men being brilliant, doesn't mean they can't be assholes too.

Of course when you like book, you feel a certain understanding for the author and if he then turns out to unpleasant it's a disappointment, but most of the days the separation works fine for me.

There are authors like Neil Gaiman, George R.R. Martin, Stephen Fry or Ellen Kushner that I find to be nice people and even if they botched a book, I'd still think so. Jeanty would be another example. He seems to be a very nice guy but his art is not my thing at all.

Willingham is like you wrote an ass. I appreciated Fables a lot more before I knew that, now all the misgivings start to stick out a bit more.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

More or less the same way. I don't know Willingham personally, as far as I know he could be a great guy. But his writing turns me off. So I don't buy it or read it. TS Eliot was an anti-semite and somewhat chauvinistic, yet I adore his poetry. Virgina Woolfe was racist...okay, no, never been fond of Woolfe, reading her feels like wading through quick sand.
Scean Connory - known for beating his wife, or so they say,
but I still like his movies. I judge their work, not rumors on their personal lives.

Willinghams' writing turns me off. It has since Fables. I gave the Angel arc a try with issue one, much as I gave Kelley Armstrong's arc a try - was bored by it, didn't recognize the characters or the verse, and chose not to buy it. Of the two, Kelley acted professionally with both IDW and DH, and with the online fandom. Willingham has acted like a spoiled whiny ass.
Kelley actually had watched the series and attempted to make it work. Willingham apparently only watched portions of it.
So...it's hard to care much about Willingham.

[ubi4soft.livejournal.com]

I'm extremely disappointed by Willingham and I should have listened to you and not pay any attention to the persons behind the comics (even the authors, especially when their work speak for themselves).

In addition to the authors listed by flake_sake I'd like to mention Orson Scott Card. I love his Ender series (recently also read the Shadow series and enjoyed) but I was told that his political, religion and homophobic opinions are not so much enjoyed by his fans.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's understandable. ;-) I'd admittedly hoped Willingham would not live down to my expectations. Or rather, would rise above them. But when I read the first issue, and then thumbed through the second? I found myself bored and the story just didn't work and the characters well, they didn't either.
Illyria, Connor, Angel, Kate, Gunn, and Spike were all off, and the two new additions made no sense.

But it is disappointing...we want more story, but the writers aren't providing us with it. The fanfic I've read lately is much much better.
Which is equally frustrating - because I find myself thinking, okay, why is this bozo getting paid for writing crap that I wouldn't pay a penny for, and this person online who writes beautifully - is doing it for free? The internet has made professional writing a lot harder - because, you begin to see that the professionals didn't get published because they are good writers or better than everyone else, so much as just pure blind luck and opportunity. And you also realize - hey why pay good money for that book, when I can read this one for free on the internet?

In addition to the authors listed by [info]flake_sake I'd like to mention Orson Scott Card. I love his Ender series (recently also read the Shadow series and enjoyed) but I was told that his political, religion and homophobic opinions are not so much enjoyed by his fans.

Ah yes, Orson Scott Card is a very good example. I'm much the same way actually. I ignore the guy behind the curtain. Good thing too - or I wouldn't be able to watch or read 89% of things I do. Certainly wouldn't be able to watch any Scean Connery or Mel Gibson films, let alone anything by Roman Polanski. And heaven forbid T.S. Eliot. I'm not really a fan of writers so much as I am of their work or stories. I'm actually fairly critical of writers. Possibly because I am a writer. So it's no big deal. Musicians on the other hand - I live in awe of. That and professional dancers/acrobatics. But actors, writers, and artists? I'm highly critical of. If I can do it - I'm critical. If I can't? I'm in awe.

[next_to_normal]

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly my reaction to the comics kerfuffle. I've never cared what Willingham thought before this, so I'm not sure why I should care now, especially since I'm not reading his comics and never plan to. I do wish he'd stop making fandom so negative, though, because as much as I support the people on my flist who are furious about it, I'd much rather they were able to pour their energy into something more positive and fun.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

It's funny I've been in the Buffy fandom more or less since 2001 and surfed the net, lurking on other fandom boards...and the same fights occur, either on lj or on the boards. They are usually between two factions. One group who loves a specific character and/or "ship" and the other who does not or more likely prefers another one to it, possibly a pre-existing relationship. The fights start out civilly, but over time, when the two factions realize they can't change each others minds and start to worry that the writers and/or creators/actors are catering/validating/listening to the views of one faction over the other and about to reward that faction - things get really nasty. Particularly if they aren't happy with the story for some reason or are frustrated with it.

We live in polarized times culturally - I think. And we are seeing this happen on multiple levels. People are frustrated. And a lot of people strike out on the net, because it is safe to strike out at someone on the internet, under an alias. It's not the same as screaming at your best friend or lover or dog. It's a way of venting. And it feels, I think, harmless to a lot of people. I've learned over time...that most people who are screaming at someone online, are often really upset about something in their personal lives that has zip to do with it - but since they can't handle directly, this is their way of coping. It's not a good way of coping, and often leads to more problems...but I can understand it. Been there, done that, so to speak. ;-)

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm. I read the comments about what Willingham is doing and think it all comes down to the context (have not read the comics). Spike hiring people to write flattering prophecies about him? Perfect way to troll Angel if he's got spare cash. But if he actually means it: yes, totally out of character for Spike to give a shit about being prophecied about.

And Spike having sex with an evil female vampire he's plotting to torture and kill? He wouldn't do it just for the sake of the sex, but I'm sure he's capable of doing that if it's part of being undercover.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Aren't you the one who told me that Willingham had attacked his detractors in the Neil Gaiman/Sandmen fandom, by calling them "fem-nazis"?

That said? I couldn't make it through issue one, and Spike was barely in that one. I just found Willinghams' characterizations and verse to be...OOC. He's actually worse than Kelly Armstrong, which I guess is saying something. ;-)

Regarding Spike? Welll...apparently in the last issue, Spike had a leg dusted and then it just regrew, because you know, vampires can do that. ;-)

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

The "feminazi" thing was in "Fables" fandom (not sure if that was the precise word he used, but something on those lines).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah, thanks. That does actually make more sense. He really got nutty in Fables. I gave up on the story early on. Apparently he's doing what he did in Fables in Angel, with Spike=Jack of Fables. I couldn't abide Jack after about three of the issues, which is one of the many reasons I gave up on the series. (I don't bother arguing with the stupid creator, (pointless) I just stop buying his product and get rid of what I had - when I dislike it.)

Didn't he also piss off the Neil Gaiman fandom? By more or less doing the same thing?

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the work in question, but I gather he wrote a Sandman spin-off about the character Thessaly aka Larissa, which fans who did read seemed to think was mostly about demeaning an extremely powerful (if not wholly sympathetic) female character.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I know from Wiki - that he did actually write a spin-off of that character, also took over the Robin comic. He's not a favorite with female fans, but alas, this is actually true of most comic writers. They aren't exactly female friendly. X-men was amongst the few exceptions within the mainstream action/superhero comics genre that catered to a female audience, Wonderwoman was another one. Traditionally, we've had to go to the underground comics or fantasy comics, such as Elfquest, and Neil Gaiman's Sandmen. Japan, interestingly enough, has been better about that - creating a whole genre of comics geared towards women. The artwork in Buffy is similar to the artwork in the Japanese books, as is the story telling. Very similar in places. Not sure if it is deliberate or not.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I agree with your take on LOST. An enjoyable episode. Jack also didn't bug me this week--though it annoyed me that Hurley just went along with the poorly-explained plan.

Part of the problem LOST has is how commited the writers are to their structure--i.e. write one episode centring around each character, for most of the season. This meant that the sideways!verse stories mostly crawled, because not many of those stories were particularly interesting. And this was true of the flashbacks and flashforwards as well. The fact that each episode has only one protagonist gets in the way of what should be ensemble storytelling, and most characters end up being reduced to one or two character traits or incidents that define them--like Jack and needing to "fix" things, or Sayid being put in a situation where he has to be a torturer/killer again, or Locke being conned by his father or a father-analogue, or whatever. They do sometimes tell good stories about the individual characters but to me they don't do so often enough.

The Willingham thing amuses me. I personally don't care what he thinks. I think it's a shame that what he is saying is upsetting fans. It wouldn't be so bad if he just were a writer who misunderstands the characters greatly--this is the thing about (i.e.) Jeanty, whose comments about Buffy/Spike are hilariously off, but who seems sincere and not trying to create problems and/or demean fans. But again--not really a problem for me, because I don't really care what IDW is doing.

I like what I see of Whedon as a person, mostly. I agree that he can get too whiny. I feel sometimes like you can tell he's trying to hold it back in some interviews, and then finally lets out his frustrations (some understandable, others not as much) in other ones. He's trying I think to be polite, but he's very passionate about his work. There's a lot of speculation of troubles between him and SMG or Charisma Carpenter but it's very difficult to assign blame or whatever from our perspective--and there's really no reason to try, since there's no way we'll get all the facts. At any rate, I like him more as a writer than as a person (some glitches aside), which is fine--it's not like I'm ever going to meet him.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Found myself nodding along in agreement with everything you state above.

Part of the problem LOST has is how commited the writers are to their structure--i.e. write one episode centring around each character, for most of the season. This meant that the sideways!verse stories mostly crawled, because not many of those stories were particularly interesting. And this was true of the flashbacks and flashforwards as well. The fact that each episode has only one protagonist gets in the way of what should be ensemble storytelling, and most characters end up being reduced to one or two character traits or incidents that define them--like Jack and needing to "fix" things, or Sayid being put in a situation where he has to be a torturer/killer again, or Locke being conned by his father or a father-analogue, or whatever. They do sometimes tell good stories about the individual characters but to me they don't do so often enough.

Exactly. That's the problem. They are too wedded to their structure, and it is beginning to get in the way of the narrative. I've seen this happen in novels as well - where the structure overshadows the tale and the reader ends up bored or distanced from the tale itself. A lot of writers got obsessed with their gimmicks. It happens a lot in genre fiction, but I've seen it in experimental narratives as well. William S. Burroughs comes to mind, as does Thomas Pynchon and William S. Gaddis.

The Willingham thing amuses me. I personally don't care what he thinks. I think it's a shame that what he is saying is upsetting fans. It wouldn't be so bad if he just were a writer who misunderstands the characters greatly...

It's even more amusing when you know there's a discernible pattern emerging behind it. Willingham has a habit of taking over an established writer's story, doing his own weird twist, pissing off the fans who hate that twist, and then going to war with them online about it. When he would be a lot better off keeping his mouth shut. He amused me greatly when he blew a gasket over the whole Twilight thing. Hee.

Agreed on Whedon as well.

At any rate, I like him more as a writer than as a person (some glitches aside), which is fine - it's not like I'm ever going to meet him

Agreed. I feel the same way. I really don't want to know the guy behind the curtain. Been there, done that. I read/view Whedon because I find the writer interesting. He's flawed, but aren't they all? ;-)

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I would suggest that a storyteller being true to him/herself, and telling the best story they can, is paying the reader a compliment... Whether the reader appreciates it, or thinks that that writer is a talentless hack, is an entirely different question.

but what I want to discuss is 'Glee'! Hee! I even had to make my own icon.
Am I a moron for not seeing 'Like a Virgin' coming a mile away? I was just watching innocently and completely missing the point that they had set up three virgin stories with which to pay off Madonna's song... it was so funny, I couldn't stop laughing. This show does keep getting better and better IMO.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm admittedly enjoying the by-play between Sylvestrie and Will.