![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Lj is acting weird again, to access my inbox, I had to log-in, but there's no where to login. Hopefully this will work. Also to edit a post? I had to log-in. I don't how it posted. And the log-in didn't show up until I googled lj and hit log-in. Highly annoying.
2. Why is it that all heroines in romance novels are 5'3 and small-boned? Is the majority of women truly this tiny? (I'm 6 foot and big boned...so yes, to me that is tiny). If anyone knows of a romance that features a tall big-boned woman (and no, not Sarah Plain and Tall), please let me know.
Reminds me of a funny story...
My father is a self-published novelist. He hires a freelance professional editor to edit his books. Sort of necessity for self-publishing. Anyhow...the editor told him that his women were unrealistic. My father asked how? She said, they were too tall with long legs. Most readers wouldn't be able to identify. Apparently the average height of the American female is 5'5, if that, 5'6 is actually considered tall. This perplexed my father - who stated but all the women I know are taller than that.
(My mother is 5'9-5'10, his sisters ranged from 5'8-5'9, I'm 6ft, my father is 6'3/6'4 , and my brother 6'5.) What are we, he asked, giants? Apparently. Or just living in the wrong area of the universe.
After hearing this story? I deliberately made the female protagonist of my novel 5'4/5'3. Didn't want anyone to tell me people wouldn't identify.
This brings up another question - is it impossible for you to enjoy a story that goes against or outside your experience?
Example - what if the heroine is in her 40s, taller than you, a pseudo-virgin, and yet very bright? (This is not me, I'm just giving a hypothetical) Would you think that was unrealistic because it does not fit with your experience of the world? Or would you embrace the story as a whole new perspective, and something different? Or what if the hero is 3'10, and has had lots of sex and is a regular casonova (think Tyrion in Game of Thrones)?
I ask, because it hits me reading book, tv and movie reviews that people often don't like anything that goes outside their experience - it either feels false to them on some level, or takes them out of the story.
True story? I had a friend once who criticized Gilmore Girls for being unrealistic, because Rory didn't lose her virginity her freshman year of college - of course all women have by this time. Which was similar to a review of 50 Shades - the reviewers main complaint was the heroine's virginity at 21 and lack of sexual experience or knowledge. People? Not everyone has the same experiences you do, I know this may come as a complete shock to you...but yes this true!
So again I ask you...do you criticize a work of story based on how close it resembles your life and experiences? If so, why?
I guess I do understand...after all, I wish I could find a romance novel that contained a heroine that echoed my experience on some level or at the very least my body-type. They don't appear to exist. It's easier, I think to fall into a book if you can relate to the characters or identify with them on some level. For example, someone who has been shall we say sexually promiscuient in their lifetime (multiple partners or lots of sex with one, whatever and lost their virginity at 16) is not going to be able to relate to a story about someone who is a virgin in their 40s or 50s. That person will seem like an alien to them or a caricature or cartoon - something to make fun of. (our society has serious issues with sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identification, and promiscuity - we all incredibly insecure and defensive about it, constantly attacking each other or people who are not like us) Shame. I think the whole point of stories is to be taken out of ourselves and placed inside someone else's head. To see a perspective foreign to us...it helps me to learn, to question my own assumptions, to rethink things. To evolve.
That said? I do still like stories that fit my experience, even if I can't find them. LOL!. Which I suppose is why I write. If they were out there? I wouldn't write. Or would I. I don't know.
3. More questions...
I thought today, on the way home and at lunch...how our beliefs and general world-view may be based on a series of questions:
* Do you only believe in things that are tangible, concrete, that you can taste, see, touch, hear? Or perhaps a more complete way to put this - do you only believe in things that have been proven by trusted authorities in their specialized fields and/or are proven via a mathematical theorem or proof...that has been established and re-established?
* Or do you believe in the intangibles? That all proofs can be broken. That human knowledge is limited, and there is a whole realm of possibility? That yes, fairies could potentially exist...no one has proven otherwise. ie. Do you believe in the possibility of something until someone proves it false, without a shadow of a doubt?
Two different, opposite views. One will only believe if prove it to them, the other believes until you prove it false - and you must provide substantial proof on both sides.
* Do you see science and mathematics as a language, flexible, manipulable, with rules and theorems, and definites, but also a lot of gray area?
* Do you believe in things that lie outside of your experience of them? Can something exist or be true if you or your close friends/family have not directly experience it? Can you believe in something that lies outside your realm of experience?
Or do you have to know it/experience it yourself to believe it? (example - Thomas in the Bible who had to stick his fingers in Christ's wounds. Or a better one? My sis-in-law believes in ghosts, she's felt and seen them. I have felt, but not seen, so am uncertain...but that does not necessarily mean I don't believe. I have friends who believe in love at first sight, I'm on the fence, perhaps we are defining it differently? But I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt...since, they experienced it. So there is an element of trust operating here...isn't there?)
I honestly think how people view religion, god, magic, etc...is based on how they think or how they answer certain questions. Do they require factual proof or are they less certain of factual data and think many things lie outside our understanding? It's very hard to debate someone who does not think the same way you do. If they believe, for example in statistical data and use it to prove their findings, but you, based on your experience, believe statistical data to be highly unreliable and circumspect, you won't buy their argument. They won't be able to convince you - because you don't believe the data or what they are using to prove it. After awhile, the debate will turn into one about the reliability of statistical data. Same is true about how we define things - if for example you are attempting to convince someone that souls exist because you saw your Granny dead, and she was an empty husk with nothing there - it won't work if the person you are attempting to convince doesn't define a soul the same way you do, or for that matter saw what you did when they looked at your Granny's body, they won't believe you. They may define what was missing as energy. They may look at it medically, as life force. They will look at it through the veil of their experience. That doesn't make you wrong and them right, just that you can't really discuss it - because you are interpreting the same data from two completely different angles.
How people can view the world so differently continues to fascinate me. I think the fact we do is wonderful. The problem is, we aren't very tolerant of people who look at the world differently than we do, partly because they often want to solve problems in ways that are contrary to the way we would resolve them.
4. The Other Woman - Mad Men...this week's episode.
Difficult episode to watch. But after thinking about...I realized the most interesting character in that episode was oddly, Don Draper. His reactions to what was happening initially surprised me, then...they didn't. The episode is about objectification.
About your worth being based solely on physical looks or sex appeal. A product being sold on its sex appeal or physical beauty. And the urge to own that.
Don Draper...is the societal equivalent of the beautiful man. Perfect in looks. Square-jawed. Tall. Lean. Dark haired. Handsome. Suave. He looks like he walked off a magazine cover or movie. In some respects he resembles the screen idols of the time - Carey Grant, Gregory Peck, Clark Gable. Every woman wants him. Every man wants to be him. He's like a sleek Porche. No man wants to be Don more than Peter Campbell, who is the opposite of all the things Don Draper represents. Pete is socially awkward, short, small boned, a perpetual teen in aspect - too boyish, and seems to creep out the opposite sex more than turn them on. He is a Buick or a Bug, not a Porche, and you can't quite see Pete behind the wheel of one either. From Pete's perspective, Don Draper has it all. But does he?
In the episode we are in various points of view, the main one's are Joan Harris, the female equivalent of a Don Draper,
Meghan, Don's wife, who is also the female equivalent of Don Draper, Peggy Olson (who is more like Pete Campbell, albeit far more likable), Pete Campbell, and finally Don Draper himself.
Don and Joan are paired, as they were in last week's episode. They are both the ultimate in sex appeal. People stop and look at them. So it should not come as a surprise that Don is sickened by Pete Campbell's proposal regarding Jacquare.
One of the key decision makers of Jacquar - suggested, heavily suggested, that if the ad firm could set him up with Joan, he'd give them the Jacquar account. Just one night with Joan Harris. (sex was of course implied). Joan balks at first, but then she thinks about it...she's a single mom, struggling to get buy, if she gave in - Mr. Price tells her - she could become a Partner in the firm, with 5% of the profit. Enough to help her in the long-run. Don leaves the room during the vote. Rodger, who has always envied Don, says no, but stays in the room and goes along with it. Only Don balks completely. To such a degree that he attempts to talk Joan out of doing it - explaining that no matter what they've told her, it's not worth it. But he's too late, as we later learn, she's already done it by the time he catches wind of the fact that they convinced her and attempts to stop it. When he discovers she did it, he is sickened and leaves. Wishing they could have gotten the account on their own merits, for providing the best proposal. He's beginning to wonder if his creative abilities are worth anything. If he's going stale. Is it all about his looks?
Meghan wonders the same - going to an audition, only to be asked to turn around and show off her form and looks. Does she physically fit the part? (Which is still true of the Entertainment Business - it's mostly about how you look, not how well you act. That's why so many tv series have boring actors...pretty, but boring, the really good ones are in theater or on cable.)
And Peggy, who leaves the firm, for one that is interested in her creative skills and isn't constantly pushing her aside because she's not "beautiful" and not a "man". The competing firm tells her that he likes her approach, the fact that she goes after the product as a consumer...and isn't hunting it's sex appeal or going for the cliche. Which her old firm was beginning to do.
What hit me, as I began to think about the episode, is it was about more than one thing...not just how men treat women in the workplace, but about a far deeper problem - our desire to turn humans into objects. Objectification. Looking at a product based on its sex appeal. Not looking beneath the first layer. And the desire to take. To own. To possess. As opposed to cherish, appreciate, and love. The ad game becomes empty...soulless, devoid of meaning as do these products or anything, when it is treated as a disposable item, something that is pretty but not much more. The Jacquare is a great metaphor - it is unreliable, not safe, doesn't start, and a bit of a lemon - but it is also sexy, and pretty, so who cares.
5. Game of Thrones - this week's episode - The Battle of the Blackwater. I didn't like this section in the book and skimmed most of it. War scenes bore me in books. Part of the reason I sludge through George RR Martin's books in much the same way I sludge through Tolkien and Winds of War, and various other War novels. I just don't find battle scenes interesting either to read or watch. The strategy is interesting - I like that aspect. But the actual fighting doesn't do much for me. I'd rather watch a sex scene...although that gets boring after a while too, just less gory. Some people hate sex scenes but love blood and guts, others like sex scenes but hate blood and guts. In other words? Choose your porn. Or if you like both - good news, True Blood is starting soon.
That said? This wasn't that bad. It was actually interesting. Possibly because unlike the book, we spent very little time on the battle-field. Most of the action was inside rooms or in conversation.
* Cersi and Sansa...these scenes were quite wonderful. Cersi reveals quite a bit about herself. And you begin to see the cracks in her armor. Being Queen has taken its toll. And above all she is working overtime to protect her children from Stannis, who she knows will kill them without remorse. She's right about Stannis. And it's not surprising she sees her father as the savior - he is and he isn't. If it weren't for Tyrion...Twyin would have been too and they'd have lost. But Tyrion won't get credit from either for his efforts.
* I couldn't remember how Tyrion used the wild-fire, just that it had somehow taken a great deal away from Daavos. It does, it kills his sons. Daavos alone survives - to bore us to tears in two more books. Although I do like him in the tv series, the casting was amazing. I found him dull as toast in the books though. At any rate - liked how they did that in the tv series - showing how Tyrion used the wild-fire to get rid of a portion of Stannis' army.
* And we just saw Tyrion's nose get cut off. I was wondering about that. Really hoping we didn't have to do that. But it is necessary. It changes Tyrion in some respects...and evolves the character. Martin likes to do redemption through suffering.
* Varrys and Tyrion, Bronn and Tyrion conversations never fail to intrigue. In both, it's made clear they have to stop Stannis and Tyrion has a lot on his plate.
* It's interesting, Tyrion is rapidly becoming the male lead of this story...that's unconventional. He is to a degree in the books, although there is regrettably a lot of time spent on Jon Snow (who is mildly interesting). Jon's problem is he's too much like Ned, he lacks a sense of humor.
In some respects this episode was easier to follow - more focused, less characters. But, I liked the other episodes better for the meaty dialogue. Not much said here, just a lot of fight scenes.
2. Why is it that all heroines in romance novels are 5'3 and small-boned? Is the majority of women truly this tiny? (I'm 6 foot and big boned...so yes, to me that is tiny). If anyone knows of a romance that features a tall big-boned woman (and no, not Sarah Plain and Tall), please let me know.
Reminds me of a funny story...
My father is a self-published novelist. He hires a freelance professional editor to edit his books. Sort of necessity for self-publishing. Anyhow...the editor told him that his women were unrealistic. My father asked how? She said, they were too tall with long legs. Most readers wouldn't be able to identify. Apparently the average height of the American female is 5'5, if that, 5'6 is actually considered tall. This perplexed my father - who stated but all the women I know are taller than that.
(My mother is 5'9-5'10, his sisters ranged from 5'8-5'9, I'm 6ft, my father is 6'3/6'4 , and my brother 6'5.) What are we, he asked, giants? Apparently. Or just living in the wrong area of the universe.
After hearing this story? I deliberately made the female protagonist of my novel 5'4/5'3. Didn't want anyone to tell me people wouldn't identify.
This brings up another question - is it impossible for you to enjoy a story that goes against or outside your experience?
Example - what if the heroine is in her 40s, taller than you, a pseudo-virgin, and yet very bright? (This is not me, I'm just giving a hypothetical) Would you think that was unrealistic because it does not fit with your experience of the world? Or would you embrace the story as a whole new perspective, and something different? Or what if the hero is 3'10, and has had lots of sex and is a regular casonova (think Tyrion in Game of Thrones)?
I ask, because it hits me reading book, tv and movie reviews that people often don't like anything that goes outside their experience - it either feels false to them on some level, or takes them out of the story.
True story? I had a friend once who criticized Gilmore Girls for being unrealistic, because Rory didn't lose her virginity her freshman year of college - of course all women have by this time. Which was similar to a review of 50 Shades - the reviewers main complaint was the heroine's virginity at 21 and lack of sexual experience or knowledge. People? Not everyone has the same experiences you do, I know this may come as a complete shock to you...but yes this true!
So again I ask you...do you criticize a work of story based on how close it resembles your life and experiences? If so, why?
I guess I do understand...after all, I wish I could find a romance novel that contained a heroine that echoed my experience on some level or at the very least my body-type. They don't appear to exist. It's easier, I think to fall into a book if you can relate to the characters or identify with them on some level. For example, someone who has been shall we say sexually promiscuient in their lifetime (multiple partners or lots of sex with one, whatever and lost their virginity at 16) is not going to be able to relate to a story about someone who is a virgin in their 40s or 50s. That person will seem like an alien to them or a caricature or cartoon - something to make fun of. (our society has serious issues with sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identification, and promiscuity - we all incredibly insecure and defensive about it, constantly attacking each other or people who are not like us) Shame. I think the whole point of stories is to be taken out of ourselves and placed inside someone else's head. To see a perspective foreign to us...it helps me to learn, to question my own assumptions, to rethink things. To evolve.
That said? I do still like stories that fit my experience, even if I can't find them. LOL!. Which I suppose is why I write. If they were out there? I wouldn't write. Or would I. I don't know.
3. More questions...
I thought today, on the way home and at lunch...how our beliefs and general world-view may be based on a series of questions:
* Do you only believe in things that are tangible, concrete, that you can taste, see, touch, hear? Or perhaps a more complete way to put this - do you only believe in things that have been proven by trusted authorities in their specialized fields and/or are proven via a mathematical theorem or proof...that has been established and re-established?
* Or do you believe in the intangibles? That all proofs can be broken. That human knowledge is limited, and there is a whole realm of possibility? That yes, fairies could potentially exist...no one has proven otherwise. ie. Do you believe in the possibility of something until someone proves it false, without a shadow of a doubt?
Two different, opposite views. One will only believe if prove it to them, the other believes until you prove it false - and you must provide substantial proof on both sides.
* Do you see science and mathematics as a language, flexible, manipulable, with rules and theorems, and definites, but also a lot of gray area?
* Do you believe in things that lie outside of your experience of them? Can something exist or be true if you or your close friends/family have not directly experience it? Can you believe in something that lies outside your realm of experience?
Or do you have to know it/experience it yourself to believe it? (example - Thomas in the Bible who had to stick his fingers in Christ's wounds. Or a better one? My sis-in-law believes in ghosts, she's felt and seen them. I have felt, but not seen, so am uncertain...but that does not necessarily mean I don't believe. I have friends who believe in love at first sight, I'm on the fence, perhaps we are defining it differently? But I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt...since, they experienced it. So there is an element of trust operating here...isn't there?)
I honestly think how people view religion, god, magic, etc...is based on how they think or how they answer certain questions. Do they require factual proof or are they less certain of factual data and think many things lie outside our understanding? It's very hard to debate someone who does not think the same way you do. If they believe, for example in statistical data and use it to prove their findings, but you, based on your experience, believe statistical data to be highly unreliable and circumspect, you won't buy their argument. They won't be able to convince you - because you don't believe the data or what they are using to prove it. After awhile, the debate will turn into one about the reliability of statistical data. Same is true about how we define things - if for example you are attempting to convince someone that souls exist because you saw your Granny dead, and she was an empty husk with nothing there - it won't work if the person you are attempting to convince doesn't define a soul the same way you do, or for that matter saw what you did when they looked at your Granny's body, they won't believe you. They may define what was missing as energy. They may look at it medically, as life force. They will look at it through the veil of their experience. That doesn't make you wrong and them right, just that you can't really discuss it - because you are interpreting the same data from two completely different angles.
How people can view the world so differently continues to fascinate me. I think the fact we do is wonderful. The problem is, we aren't very tolerant of people who look at the world differently than we do, partly because they often want to solve problems in ways that are contrary to the way we would resolve them.
4. The Other Woman - Mad Men...this week's episode.
Difficult episode to watch. But after thinking about...I realized the most interesting character in that episode was oddly, Don Draper. His reactions to what was happening initially surprised me, then...they didn't. The episode is about objectification.
About your worth being based solely on physical looks or sex appeal. A product being sold on its sex appeal or physical beauty. And the urge to own that.
Don Draper...is the societal equivalent of the beautiful man. Perfect in looks. Square-jawed. Tall. Lean. Dark haired. Handsome. Suave. He looks like he walked off a magazine cover or movie. In some respects he resembles the screen idols of the time - Carey Grant, Gregory Peck, Clark Gable. Every woman wants him. Every man wants to be him. He's like a sleek Porche. No man wants to be Don more than Peter Campbell, who is the opposite of all the things Don Draper represents. Pete is socially awkward, short, small boned, a perpetual teen in aspect - too boyish, and seems to creep out the opposite sex more than turn them on. He is a Buick or a Bug, not a Porche, and you can't quite see Pete behind the wheel of one either. From Pete's perspective, Don Draper has it all. But does he?
In the episode we are in various points of view, the main one's are Joan Harris, the female equivalent of a Don Draper,
Meghan, Don's wife, who is also the female equivalent of Don Draper, Peggy Olson (who is more like Pete Campbell, albeit far more likable), Pete Campbell, and finally Don Draper himself.
Don and Joan are paired, as they were in last week's episode. They are both the ultimate in sex appeal. People stop and look at them. So it should not come as a surprise that Don is sickened by Pete Campbell's proposal regarding Jacquare.
One of the key decision makers of Jacquar - suggested, heavily suggested, that if the ad firm could set him up with Joan, he'd give them the Jacquar account. Just one night with Joan Harris. (sex was of course implied). Joan balks at first, but then she thinks about it...she's a single mom, struggling to get buy, if she gave in - Mr. Price tells her - she could become a Partner in the firm, with 5% of the profit. Enough to help her in the long-run. Don leaves the room during the vote. Rodger, who has always envied Don, says no, but stays in the room and goes along with it. Only Don balks completely. To such a degree that he attempts to talk Joan out of doing it - explaining that no matter what they've told her, it's not worth it. But he's too late, as we later learn, she's already done it by the time he catches wind of the fact that they convinced her and attempts to stop it. When he discovers she did it, he is sickened and leaves. Wishing they could have gotten the account on their own merits, for providing the best proposal. He's beginning to wonder if his creative abilities are worth anything. If he's going stale. Is it all about his looks?
Meghan wonders the same - going to an audition, only to be asked to turn around and show off her form and looks. Does she physically fit the part? (Which is still true of the Entertainment Business - it's mostly about how you look, not how well you act. That's why so many tv series have boring actors...pretty, but boring, the really good ones are in theater or on cable.)
And Peggy, who leaves the firm, for one that is interested in her creative skills and isn't constantly pushing her aside because she's not "beautiful" and not a "man". The competing firm tells her that he likes her approach, the fact that she goes after the product as a consumer...and isn't hunting it's sex appeal or going for the cliche. Which her old firm was beginning to do.
What hit me, as I began to think about the episode, is it was about more than one thing...not just how men treat women in the workplace, but about a far deeper problem - our desire to turn humans into objects. Objectification. Looking at a product based on its sex appeal. Not looking beneath the first layer. And the desire to take. To own. To possess. As opposed to cherish, appreciate, and love. The ad game becomes empty...soulless, devoid of meaning as do these products or anything, when it is treated as a disposable item, something that is pretty but not much more. The Jacquare is a great metaphor - it is unreliable, not safe, doesn't start, and a bit of a lemon - but it is also sexy, and pretty, so who cares.
5. Game of Thrones - this week's episode - The Battle of the Blackwater. I didn't like this section in the book and skimmed most of it. War scenes bore me in books. Part of the reason I sludge through George RR Martin's books in much the same way I sludge through Tolkien and Winds of War, and various other War novels. I just don't find battle scenes interesting either to read or watch. The strategy is interesting - I like that aspect. But the actual fighting doesn't do much for me. I'd rather watch a sex scene...although that gets boring after a while too, just less gory. Some people hate sex scenes but love blood and guts, others like sex scenes but hate blood and guts. In other words? Choose your porn. Or if you like both - good news, True Blood is starting soon.
That said? This wasn't that bad. It was actually interesting. Possibly because unlike the book, we spent very little time on the battle-field. Most of the action was inside rooms or in conversation.
* Cersi and Sansa...these scenes were quite wonderful. Cersi reveals quite a bit about herself. And you begin to see the cracks in her armor. Being Queen has taken its toll. And above all she is working overtime to protect her children from Stannis, who she knows will kill them without remorse. She's right about Stannis. And it's not surprising she sees her father as the savior - he is and he isn't. If it weren't for Tyrion...Twyin would have been too and they'd have lost. But Tyrion won't get credit from either for his efforts.
* I couldn't remember how Tyrion used the wild-fire, just that it had somehow taken a great deal away from Daavos. It does, it kills his sons. Daavos alone survives - to bore us to tears in two more books. Although I do like him in the tv series, the casting was amazing. I found him dull as toast in the books though. At any rate - liked how they did that in the tv series - showing how Tyrion used the wild-fire to get rid of a portion of Stannis' army.
* And we just saw Tyrion's nose get cut off. I was wondering about that. Really hoping we didn't have to do that. But it is necessary. It changes Tyrion in some respects...and evolves the character. Martin likes to do redemption through suffering.
* Varrys and Tyrion, Bronn and Tyrion conversations never fail to intrigue. In both, it's made clear they have to stop Stannis and Tyrion has a lot on his plate.
* It's interesting, Tyrion is rapidly becoming the male lead of this story...that's unconventional. He is to a degree in the books, although there is regrettably a lot of time spent on Jon Snow (who is mildly interesting). Jon's problem is he's too much like Ned, he lacks a sense of humor.
In some respects this episode was easier to follow - more focused, less characters. But, I liked the other episodes better for the meaty dialogue. Not much said here, just a lot of fight scenes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-06-01 12:41 am (UTC)As for those tall heroines you were looking for, I don't really read romance or realistic fiction but 'Song in the Silence' and its two sequels by Elizabeth Kerner feature a heroine who is stated to be very tall and strong. That's the only one I can think of offhand, though. I actually find it really irritating when authors include exact heights for their characters (looking at you Tamora Pierce) and if height is mentioned I think I often skim past it. I think the heroine of the Parasol Protectorate books might be fairly tall/stocky, and I'm sure there are others I've read, I just don't pay that much attention to it.
Anyway, personally I don't mind stories with characters outside my own experience. Really one of my biggest complaints about fantasy, even though I love it, is that for a genre that can literally be set anywhere, we almost always get rural pseudo-medieval England/Europe. Even steampunk stories are mostly set in Europe, despite being a subgenre that's practically custom-made to blend with American settings and an old west backdrop. I don't understand. I want jungles! Deserts! Cities in the sky! Seriously anything I don't care as long as it's not another stupid rural English village. D:
(GRRM is an exception to this; from him I will tolerate the more standard setting because the characters are interesting and he DOES mix it up with the North and Braavos and wherever Daenerys wanders.)
As far as worldview... it's complicated. Mostly I trust science and facts over intuition. But I'm divided. Intellectually, I don't believe in ghosts or the supernatural, I'm increasingly divided on whether I believe in any sort of God. But my creative self, my heart of hearts, REALLY wants to believe in the fantastic and the impossible. Which is probably why ghosts and spirits show up all over the damn place in my stories/art. Sometimes I feel like the idea of these things is so powerful it doesn't matter if they turn out not to be real; just the illusion is enough. And I do sort of subscribe to Gaiman's common theme that if these things exist at all it's only because we believe in them?
Basically my head is full of contradictory ideas. Which side I'd argue would depend on the subject. If we're talking about a science-based topic like medicine I accept research and facts only. But there's also plenty of things that science can't explain yet and lots of areas where science is maybe not all that applicable-- when it comes to human beliefs especially, it doesn't really matter that a lot of things we believe make no sense; we believe them anyway because they make us feel better.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-01 08:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-01 09:15 pm (UTC)I rewound several times to be certain that the cut went across the bridge of his nose...it does.
I haven't been around for awhile but here goes...........
Date: 2012-06-01 11:59 am (UTC)Rufus
no subject
Date: 2012-06-01 09:19 pm (UTC)The Don stuff pays off elements from earlier in the season. I'm thinking of Don in his bed with a fever, begging his old fling to let him go. The idea that part of Don's ladykiller tendencies are because he is someone women go after and try to possess, treat like an object -- that he tries, but he can't escape it. He gives Pete a hard time for the brothel, because Don is over that type of thing -- but, really, Don never "needed" or wanted brothels (not that he's never gone to one as a patron -- but it's a different experience for him than for Peter), because women are drawn to him.
Interesting are the reactions that Pete and Lane have to Joan's offer. Pete is a snot about it, of course -- but he is also coming at it from the perspective of someone who would absolutely want to be desired that badly. Lane is willing to do unethical things to maintain his financial situation, and so he projects that onto Joan, giving her the financial security that he himself lacks.
And in a sense, Joan's prostitution is, while much worse than, of a similar nature to the regular "prostitution" that the partners, and account men, and creative do constantly, flattering potential clients inauthentically to get their money. It's much harder on Joan, and much more unreasonable to ask her; but it's part of the business. Which again reminds me of Peggy, when she yelled at the Heinz client a few episodes back, refusing to treat him politely, standing up for her own work, and being viciously turned down, because how dare she talk to him that way. Peggy -- I am not sure I'd describe it as "integrity" per se, but she doesn't want to lie or flatter. She wants to work. And she wants to find something authentic.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-02 09:33 am (UTC)I find this question beyond weird... That is, I deliberately seek out stories that are outside my experience. I pretty much only write stories that are outside my own experience. Why would I want to read about myself & my own life? That's pretty dull. I like my characters & their lives to be as alien and different and fantastical as possible. I like to read about/watch relationships which are complicated and difficult (and where they often try to kill each other).
And... I don't believe that I'm that unusual. I mean - look at the over-identification with Spike. No one is a centuries old vampire legend with a chip & then a soul, who used to be a Victorian poet, and who loves fighting and killing. Yet he speaks to most people.
Which - in a roundabout way - brings me to my point: Surely we love stories because they take us away from our lives? And the way they usually do that is through metaphors - just look at fairy tales, and how we use them to teach children about the world.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-03 01:33 am (UTC)I'm pretty much the same way. I personally find talking about my life or reading about it, let alone writing about it or close proximations to it, to be woefully dull. Why I'd want to read these books about mid-life crisis by bored single urban dwellers is beyond me.
That said...I do like characters that resonate on some level. As different as Spike is from me, I identified with the unrequited love, the yearning, the rejection from peers, the poet...
But that's admittedly not the same as wanting to read about someone like myself or something within my own experience. Prefer it to be outside my experience - in most cases. Although it can be comforting to read stories or watch stories about characters who share similar experiences and see how they resolve them differently... a sort of what-if take, or just comforting to see I'm not the only one who feels too fat to be sexually attractive or feels lonely or etc, etc...
I think, in short, it's more complicated that I make it out to be.
People are impossible to pigeon hole...we too complicated and unique.
But I want to do it anyway...LOL!