Five things before Dinner.
Sep. 12th, 2010 07:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Aunts are head over the heels in love with Big Love - so decided to give it the old college try, once again. And after watching seven episodes, I have no idea what they see in it. It's boring the heck out of me. I went to sleep during episode six. The show's basically a series dramatic take on a man who decides to marry three women, after his wife contracted ovarian cancer and could not have additional kids. She survived. He married her nurse (second wife) and then the babysitter. And he comes from a family that is into polygamy, as does his second wife, Nikki, who is the daughter of his arch-rival and the man who ruined his family. The women are whiny, the men are whiny, and the story not all that interesting. I keep hoping it will get better, it hasn't. Really don't understand what all the hype is about. It is well written, I guess. And it has a great cast - Bruce Dern, Harry Dean Stanton, Bill Paxton, Jeanne Tripplehorn, and Chloe Sevrny. But I get restless during it. Or fall asleep. I'm half-watching it in the background now.
2. Saw a brief interview this morning with award winning play-write Edward Albee. [In case you haven't figured it out by now? I'm a bit of a theater geek. Was in Drama Club off and on from the fifth grade to the 12th, then took drama and performed in theater briefly in College. Also took courses on theater criticism and analysis, as well as read more plays than I can count. In high school - I had to read about two-three plays a week and write reports on them. Most people cheated and copied reports from previous years or found other clever ways around it. I took the assignment seriously. Silly me. As a result I read every single play in both the school and public libarires, before I ran out and started purchasing them. I've read all of Woody Allen's plays, all of Neil Simons (well everything written prior to 1985 at any rate), all of Checkov, quite a few of Ibsen, and of course Albee, Brecht, Beckett (who gives me a head-ache), Moliere (actually saw a Moliere play performed in French via a French class field-trip), and Pinter, and I have an extensive or rather had an extensive collection in my parents house. Albee is amongst my favorite playwrites.
Best known for Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolfe, Albee was being interviewed on his most recent play - Me, Myself and I. During the interview, Albee who looks a bit like a petrified man, thin, with skin sticking his bones, stated the following bits:
* You need to have humor in it, even if it is dark and serious drama and scary. I've read both Chekov and Ibsen, Chekov was more entertaining and better - he could be very dark and very tragic, but also very very funny. While Ibsen - really has no sense of humor whatesover. We need to laugh.
* I enjoy stories that deal with people who are struggling to find a way to deal with the reality of who they are, as opposed to who they wish they were.
* I know that no two people see the same play. And when I look into the mirror, I wonder how much of me that I see in the mirror that other's see. To what degree do they see what I see ?
[I wish I could remember his exact words...because it made realize that the person I see in the mirror is not the person other's see when they look at me. They may see a bit of it, but not the whole. We do not and cannot know how others see us. This fascinated me. So the face I see in the mirror each morning may not be what someone else sees? I wonder what they do see? And how much of what I see is what they see? ]
3. Rainy day. Would have preferred that yesterday be rainy and today sunny. The block party thrummed its music until midnight. And it was not good music. Wandered through the Brooklyn Book Festival to church, then after church saw five flats - the last by far the best, but also the most expensive. NY Real Estate is depressingly pricey. And church had an interesting and moving sermon on the tender territory of faith, how faith was not isolated to believing in a deity or one faith. And that the self-righteous insistence from those that believe they have the whole truth and the one faith - is harmful and should be questioned. We should not have others coerce or force us to have faith in what they do. That's not to say there isn't validity in their views or faiths or doctrines, but that there is no one answer, and all should be allowed to find their own way, the most important thing to have faith in - is in oneself, one's own bright faith in a better tomorrow and unique purpose in the world. Faith in onself and in the world around you, and in others. Faith in our own choices, whether they be a belief in a god, or something else. Wish I could remember his words. But they came at a time that I was admittedly struggling with my faith in my own choices and myself, second-guessing. Again. Didn't stop and buy any books at book festival - I have too many as it is.
4. Got home and watched a rather brilliant episode of The Closer. Best I have seen in quite some time. It was entitled "Last Woman Standing" - and juxtaposed a murder of an actress who had created a one woman act about her trials and tribulations as an actress in Hollywood struggling to obtain her dreams when her friends have given up theirs for men, with Deputy Cheif Brenda Lee Johnson who is struggling with her love of her job and the pressure to achieve a position of power for women. She's the only woman on her squad, leading a bunch of men. And in her conversation with Rainor - which is juxtaposed with a pretty blond woman interviewing a man she contacted on a dating service (the suspect in a murder) - Rainor tells Brenda Lee that although she got her position by sleeping with her boss, she now has the opportunity to actually get a higher position based on her abilities. Rainer explains how she took a job she hated, Internal Affairs, just to obtain rank. And if Brenda Lee took the job as Cheif of Police - she'd be a role model for them all. They'd be proud. If she didn't try her best, didn't go for it - she'd fail them all, and they'd never forgive her for it. This speech reminded me of something my pal CW who is African-American and female said several years back - about how her family expected her to achieve, to have black friends, to not sell out. While Brenda Lee is listening to this and getting prepped for her interview with the Mayor, we see the blind date - where an engaged guy is giving a pretty girl a line. When she questions him on it. He says, you are tough. She replies, no, I am wary. We learn later that he has dated at least 9 women from this online service, slept with each, all while engaged to someone else. Dumping them after he sleeps with them. Brenda Lee in her prep session - is told by Rainor that she has to dress a certain way, she can't be comfortable, she has to have fashion sense, look powerful, carry a small purse instead of the big one, and make the Mayor comfortable - he has to feel they get along. See it like a date, Rainor states. Chemistry. And we jump to the blind date that the police are monitoring...
This episode depicts what it is to be a woman in this world. One of the best lines is from the murder victim - who states, I love men, people think I don't. I do. I just want to be their equal and find an equal partner. To be me in the relationship, not who they expect me to be.
Living in a sexist society is fine and dandy if you happen to be the gender that is control and power, it rather sucks if you are not. But what is not clearly understood, is we do not want the power, we want to share it. Brenda Lee doesn't want the power, she wants to share the power. She wants equality of choice. She tells Rainor - I want to be able to choose not to be Chief, not to have to do it - to further my gender. And she looks tenderly at the actress, who wants to date and find a guy, who can love her as she is.
5. George RR Martin's Storm of Swords continues to impress. I'm not sure how he is doing it. He switches pov every five-ten pages, yet manages to leave you on a cliff-hanger and engrossed in each character, and wanting more, regardless. Normally this approach can be rather irritating. I've read books that did this and I wanted to scream - go back, go back to the other guy, please. But here, that screaming lasts maybe less then a second before I'm completely engrossed with the new character. Also he's juggling a cast of literally thousands.
This book has chapters from the pov's of at least ten different characters, who are vastly different from each other. POV from villains as well as heroes, and when you are in the villain's pov, you see them as the hero and the hero as the villain and vice versa, so it's not really black and white at all. This is hard to do, people. Really hard. I've seen authors attempt it and fail miserably. You risk losing the reader each time you change, and you have to have a clear idea of your plot and what everyone is doing at all times.
It's like knitting gloves, you can't drop a thread or the whole thing unravels. I suck at knitting gloves, because I have no sense of proportion and can't count. I gave up on it finally.
Martin knits and weaves a story like few can. Terry Brooks totally sucked at this, his characters are fairly two dimensional and plots, cheesy! (I've read or tried to read a lot of crappy fantasy novels in my lifetime, many I can't remember the names or authors. They blur together. And genre for some reason attracts more crappy writers than non-genre does, hence the bad rep. It's not fair - there are some genre novels that do things a literary novelist would envy. And I adore genre, all genres (not particular) obviously. Also unlike literary, genre novelists have to juggle character, plot and worldbuilding - not easy to do. Literary - you basically just have to have interesting characters. Historical literary is more taxing of course. (ie. literary that takes place in a time other than yours and requires, ugh, research. )
2. Saw a brief interview this morning with award winning play-write Edward Albee. [In case you haven't figured it out by now? I'm a bit of a theater geek. Was in Drama Club off and on from the fifth grade to the 12th, then took drama and performed in theater briefly in College. Also took courses on theater criticism and analysis, as well as read more plays than I can count. In high school - I had to read about two-three plays a week and write reports on them. Most people cheated and copied reports from previous years or found other clever ways around it. I took the assignment seriously. Silly me. As a result I read every single play in both the school and public libarires, before I ran out and started purchasing them. I've read all of Woody Allen's plays, all of Neil Simons (well everything written prior to 1985 at any rate), all of Checkov, quite a few of Ibsen, and of course Albee, Brecht, Beckett (who gives me a head-ache), Moliere (actually saw a Moliere play performed in French via a French class field-trip), and Pinter, and I have an extensive or rather had an extensive collection in my parents house. Albee is amongst my favorite playwrites.
Best known for Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolfe, Albee was being interviewed on his most recent play - Me, Myself and I. During the interview, Albee who looks a bit like a petrified man, thin, with skin sticking his bones, stated the following bits:
* You need to have humor in it, even if it is dark and serious drama and scary. I've read both Chekov and Ibsen, Chekov was more entertaining and better - he could be very dark and very tragic, but also very very funny. While Ibsen - really has no sense of humor whatesover. We need to laugh.
* I enjoy stories that deal with people who are struggling to find a way to deal with the reality of who they are, as opposed to who they wish they were.
* I know that no two people see the same play. And when I look into the mirror, I wonder how much of me that I see in the mirror that other's see. To what degree do they see what I see ?
[I wish I could remember his exact words...because it made realize that the person I see in the mirror is not the person other's see when they look at me. They may see a bit of it, but not the whole. We do not and cannot know how others see us. This fascinated me. So the face I see in the mirror each morning may not be what someone else sees? I wonder what they do see? And how much of what I see is what they see? ]
3. Rainy day. Would have preferred that yesterday be rainy and today sunny. The block party thrummed its music until midnight. And it was not good music. Wandered through the Brooklyn Book Festival to church, then after church saw five flats - the last by far the best, but also the most expensive. NY Real Estate is depressingly pricey. And church had an interesting and moving sermon on the tender territory of faith, how faith was not isolated to believing in a deity or one faith. And that the self-righteous insistence from those that believe they have the whole truth and the one faith - is harmful and should be questioned. We should not have others coerce or force us to have faith in what they do. That's not to say there isn't validity in their views or faiths or doctrines, but that there is no one answer, and all should be allowed to find their own way, the most important thing to have faith in - is in oneself, one's own bright faith in a better tomorrow and unique purpose in the world. Faith in onself and in the world around you, and in others. Faith in our own choices, whether they be a belief in a god, or something else. Wish I could remember his words. But they came at a time that I was admittedly struggling with my faith in my own choices and myself, second-guessing. Again. Didn't stop and buy any books at book festival - I have too many as it is.
4. Got home and watched a rather brilliant episode of The Closer. Best I have seen in quite some time. It was entitled "Last Woman Standing" - and juxtaposed a murder of an actress who had created a one woman act about her trials and tribulations as an actress in Hollywood struggling to obtain her dreams when her friends have given up theirs for men, with Deputy Cheif Brenda Lee Johnson who is struggling with her love of her job and the pressure to achieve a position of power for women. She's the only woman on her squad, leading a bunch of men. And in her conversation with Rainor - which is juxtaposed with a pretty blond woman interviewing a man she contacted on a dating service (the suspect in a murder) - Rainor tells Brenda Lee that although she got her position by sleeping with her boss, she now has the opportunity to actually get a higher position based on her abilities. Rainer explains how she took a job she hated, Internal Affairs, just to obtain rank. And if Brenda Lee took the job as Cheif of Police - she'd be a role model for them all. They'd be proud. If she didn't try her best, didn't go for it - she'd fail them all, and they'd never forgive her for it. This speech reminded me of something my pal CW who is African-American and female said several years back - about how her family expected her to achieve, to have black friends, to not sell out. While Brenda Lee is listening to this and getting prepped for her interview with the Mayor, we see the blind date - where an engaged guy is giving a pretty girl a line. When she questions him on it. He says, you are tough. She replies, no, I am wary. We learn later that he has dated at least 9 women from this online service, slept with each, all while engaged to someone else. Dumping them after he sleeps with them. Brenda Lee in her prep session - is told by Rainor that she has to dress a certain way, she can't be comfortable, she has to have fashion sense, look powerful, carry a small purse instead of the big one, and make the Mayor comfortable - he has to feel they get along. See it like a date, Rainor states. Chemistry. And we jump to the blind date that the police are monitoring...
This episode depicts what it is to be a woman in this world. One of the best lines is from the murder victim - who states, I love men, people think I don't. I do. I just want to be their equal and find an equal partner. To be me in the relationship, not who they expect me to be.
Living in a sexist society is fine and dandy if you happen to be the gender that is control and power, it rather sucks if you are not. But what is not clearly understood, is we do not want the power, we want to share it. Brenda Lee doesn't want the power, she wants to share the power. She wants equality of choice. She tells Rainor - I want to be able to choose not to be Chief, not to have to do it - to further my gender. And she looks tenderly at the actress, who wants to date and find a guy, who can love her as she is.
5. George RR Martin's Storm of Swords continues to impress. I'm not sure how he is doing it. He switches pov every five-ten pages, yet manages to leave you on a cliff-hanger and engrossed in each character, and wanting more, regardless. Normally this approach can be rather irritating. I've read books that did this and I wanted to scream - go back, go back to the other guy, please. But here, that screaming lasts maybe less then a second before I'm completely engrossed with the new character. Also he's juggling a cast of literally thousands.
This book has chapters from the pov's of at least ten different characters, who are vastly different from each other. POV from villains as well as heroes, and when you are in the villain's pov, you see them as the hero and the hero as the villain and vice versa, so it's not really black and white at all. This is hard to do, people. Really hard. I've seen authors attempt it and fail miserably. You risk losing the reader each time you change, and you have to have a clear idea of your plot and what everyone is doing at all times.
It's like knitting gloves, you can't drop a thread or the whole thing unravels. I suck at knitting gloves, because I have no sense of proportion and can't count. I gave up on it finally.
Martin knits and weaves a story like few can. Terry Brooks totally sucked at this, his characters are fairly two dimensional and plots, cheesy! (I've read or tried to read a lot of crappy fantasy novels in my lifetime, many I can't remember the names or authors. They blur together. And genre for some reason attracts more crappy writers than non-genre does, hence the bad rep. It's not fair - there are some genre novels that do things a literary novelist would envy. And I adore genre, all genres (not particular) obviously. Also unlike literary, genre novelists have to juggle character, plot and worldbuilding - not easy to do. Literary - you basically just have to have interesting characters. Historical literary is more taxing of course. (ie. literary that takes place in a time other than yours and requires, ugh, research. )