![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Half-watching Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking, the HBO filming of her Broadway Show, which I'd read the book version a year or so ago. Rather amusing. And rather like the book, except with film reels and sound.
Best line? George Lucas to Carrie Fisher on playing Princess Leia in the first film, Star Wars, in her white dress:"You can't wear a bra under that dress?"
Carrie: Why?
George: Because there is no underwear in space.
2. Is it rude to comment on something I haven't read or seen? I think so. But hard not to comment on the various reviews, I am restraining myself. But this bit of dialogue from the Angel & Faith comic requires something.
Faith: Sorry Angel, your Twilight plot made as much sense as a David Lynch film (my vague memory of multiple reviews I've read of the comic reposting this line of dialogue.)
Sorry Faith, I've watched David Lynch. The Twilight Plot makes "less" sense than any David Lynch film and is most likely a wild and failed attempt at David Lynch by someone like Marty Kroft, by way of H&R PuffnStuff and Land of the Lost and possibly My Little Pony.
But hey, good try. Also was that an indirect jab at Brian Lynch, if so? Catty.
3. Am gearing up to try Fringe again based on flist's ravings about it. We shall see. It appears to be based on X-Files. Was not an X-Files fan, I know, I know, in the minority online, all sci-fi fans love the X-Files. I just don't get the appeal. So...this might not work.
Slipstream sci-fi doesn't really work for me. Monster of the week. Two buddy cops or a military unit investigating it. They solve the mystery, but not quite, Twilight Zone music humming the background. Actually that sounds a lot like Supernatural, except gothic and with a better sense of humor. For some reason the gothic/fairy tale variety of this trope works better for me than the sci-fi variety. (Supernatural is actually quite funny, but you sort of have to have a background in urban folklore and legends, not to mention noir/Western films and funky Christian mythos to get the jokes.)
Didn't like Star Gate or Warehouse 13 either, for the same reasons, too bloody episodic. Also gross and the sci-fi monster of the week bit keeps up me awake, well the gothic version not quite so much.
I like tv shows that are so convoluted and twisty that you can't follow unless you see it from the beginning and watch every single episode. X-Files was odd, since I liked the Stand-a-Alones, but thought the arc was incredibly stupid and made no sense. (A by-product of seeing one too many cheesy 1970s sci-fi TV shows, and one too many 1950s-1960s cheesy alien invasion flicks.)
Also, like all tv shows of this particular trope - the male/female buddy leads can't get romantic, because gasp!shock! this would ruin the show! We must always have "sexual tension"! (Ben Browder who was on both Star Gate and Farscape makes fun of this tv formula problem in numerous commentaries to Farscape - endearing me to the actor/writer forever. I'd follow him around on tv shows, etc, but he's never in anything.) Just in case you think Chris Carter started this trend...he didn't. No, that began long ago in a galaxy far far away otherwise known as Cheers, and shortly followed by Moonlighting, and then Remington Steel, and before that with Bridget Love Bernie (short lived that's why you've never heard of it, I think my mother was the only one who watched it). Whedon used to state that he couldn't put Buffy and Spike or Buffy and Angel permanently together - because Cheers was ruined when Sam slept with Diane. (I beg to differ, the show got more interesting. But what do I know?) Which in a nutshell is why I don't particularly like that trope. Because after about the third season? The unresolved sexual tension gets a bit old and unbelievable and well, I give up and watch something else, since clearly this show is just going to repeat itself and what's the point?
4. Been thinking about narrative tropes...and realized something, I appear to be fickle. By that, I mean, I will fall compulsively in love with a trope, binge on it even, then all of a sudden, nope can't stand it. That's it. I'm suddenly allergic to it. I do this with candy bars and food too, by the way. So at least I'm consistent.
5. Reading George RR Martin's Feast of Crows...which is getting to be surprisingly good. Maybe it's just my mood? You have to be in the right mood to read Martin, since his books require patience. Page turners they aren't - at least not to me. Also, while tempting to scan and skim, you will regret it later, as I have discovered the hard way. Right now? I'm enjoying it -
But I've also spent the last two chapters in Samwell Tarwell and Brienne's points of view. Likable characters.
Ceresi isn't that bad either at the moment. Granted, after reading three chapters in points of view that are foreign to me and I don't care about at all - Cersei was a welcome relief. Also, I'm invested emotionally in the dual character arcs of Jamie and Tyrion Lannister - and her involvement with them. It's interesting. One brother - her twin - she sees as her protector and
comfort, and partner, the other a constant threat and her undoing. One she uses and manipulates, the other she fears. And in her head? She's her father's heir and his true son. All her life, she's been in competition with her brother's for her father, for his power, and his love and admiration. In many ways, Ceresi is Tywin Lannister's creation.
My current problem with this book is a problem I'm having with a lot of stories at the moment, the current obsession with fanatical religion. Yes, I get that it is a topical issue, but seriously, there's such a thing as a saturation point. After a bit this becomes a tad cliche. In Feast - we have one too many fanatical religious orgs in power. Everyone is nutty over religion. It's a relief when you hit upon people who aren't.
[It's probably worth noting, I'm only 10% into the book, which means I'm roughly 100 pages maybe a bit more into it.]
But the book is compelling to me. I like this sort of fantasy. It's dark and gritty. The characters gloriously complicated. There are issues...of course. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment that none of the characters are starkly good or evil. Maybe none are clearly good, but there are a few that seem to be almost irredeemably bad...such as Cersei. OR maybe it's the madness.
I don't agree with some of the rabid feminists who despise the books. Although, I'm not sure they've actually read them. The books have some extremely interesting and various female characters. (Brienne, Ayra, Gilly, Sansa, Daenrys, Asha, Obara, Meliandsara, Val, Dalle, Catelynn, and Cersei to name a few). Martin creates as many interesting and diverse women as he does men, and they aren't all beautiful or male sex objects, quite a few aren't. He does a good job of describing how they struggle in world where male power dominates. The Medieval period is actually a good period to choose for this type of fantasy...it provides a way of exploring the power dynamics...of those who are not physically strong and capable vs. those that are. Intellect vs. Brute Strength is a key theme. And how people who we may perceive as weak or victims can surprise you. In Martin's novels brute strength does not necessarily equal power. If anything I think Martin is fairly equal in his handling of gender. More so actually than some female writers out there.
As for the writing...it's dense, but not pretty. I'm not a fan of pretty prose - beautiful poetic sentences that wander and play at the page's edge. Okay, maybe I am. But I'm leery of it. We writers have a tendency to fall in love with our own poetic prose forgetting the prose is supposed to further the tale, communicate it to a reader, not well be pretty. I include myself in that category by the way. Too often I've found myself distracted by a poetic turn of phrase, that I will lose my train of thought and wander off. Instead of communicating what is inside my mind, or
telling the truth, I'll let the poetry of the sentence win out. Which is not communication, it is masturbation. And we have a habit of awarding it far too often. (I think I've done it a few times in this post, sorry about that.)
Best line? George Lucas to Carrie Fisher on playing Princess Leia in the first film, Star Wars, in her white dress:"You can't wear a bra under that dress?"
Carrie: Why?
George: Because there is no underwear in space.
2. Is it rude to comment on something I haven't read or seen? I think so. But hard not to comment on the various reviews, I am restraining myself. But this bit of dialogue from the Angel & Faith comic requires something.
Faith: Sorry Angel, your Twilight plot made as much sense as a David Lynch film (my vague memory of multiple reviews I've read of the comic reposting this line of dialogue.)
Sorry Faith, I've watched David Lynch. The Twilight Plot makes "less" sense than any David Lynch film and is most likely a wild and failed attempt at David Lynch by someone like Marty Kroft, by way of H&R PuffnStuff and Land of the Lost and possibly My Little Pony.
But hey, good try. Also was that an indirect jab at Brian Lynch, if so? Catty.
3. Am gearing up to try Fringe again based on flist's ravings about it. We shall see. It appears to be based on X-Files. Was not an X-Files fan, I know, I know, in the minority online, all sci-fi fans love the X-Files. I just don't get the appeal. So...this might not work.
Slipstream sci-fi doesn't really work for me. Monster of the week. Two buddy cops or a military unit investigating it. They solve the mystery, but not quite, Twilight Zone music humming the background. Actually that sounds a lot like Supernatural, except gothic and with a better sense of humor. For some reason the gothic/fairy tale variety of this trope works better for me than the sci-fi variety. (Supernatural is actually quite funny, but you sort of have to have a background in urban folklore and legends, not to mention noir/Western films and funky Christian mythos to get the jokes.)
Didn't like Star Gate or Warehouse 13 either, for the same reasons, too bloody episodic. Also gross and the sci-fi monster of the week bit keeps up me awake, well the gothic version not quite so much.
I like tv shows that are so convoluted and twisty that you can't follow unless you see it from the beginning and watch every single episode. X-Files was odd, since I liked the Stand-a-Alones, but thought the arc was incredibly stupid and made no sense. (A by-product of seeing one too many cheesy 1970s sci-fi TV shows, and one too many 1950s-1960s cheesy alien invasion flicks.)
Also, like all tv shows of this particular trope - the male/female buddy leads can't get romantic, because gasp!shock! this would ruin the show! We must always have "sexual tension"! (Ben Browder who was on both Star Gate and Farscape makes fun of this tv formula problem in numerous commentaries to Farscape - endearing me to the actor/writer forever. I'd follow him around on tv shows, etc, but he's never in anything.) Just in case you think Chris Carter started this trend...he didn't. No, that began long ago in a galaxy far far away otherwise known as Cheers, and shortly followed by Moonlighting, and then Remington Steel, and before that with Bridget Love Bernie (short lived that's why you've never heard of it, I think my mother was the only one who watched it). Whedon used to state that he couldn't put Buffy and Spike or Buffy and Angel permanently together - because Cheers was ruined when Sam slept with Diane. (I beg to differ, the show got more interesting. But what do I know?) Which in a nutshell is why I don't particularly like that trope. Because after about the third season? The unresolved sexual tension gets a bit old and unbelievable and well, I give up and watch something else, since clearly this show is just going to repeat itself and what's the point?
4. Been thinking about narrative tropes...and realized something, I appear to be fickle. By that, I mean, I will fall compulsively in love with a trope, binge on it even, then all of a sudden, nope can't stand it. That's it. I'm suddenly allergic to it. I do this with candy bars and food too, by the way. So at least I'm consistent.
5. Reading George RR Martin's Feast of Crows...which is getting to be surprisingly good. Maybe it's just my mood? You have to be in the right mood to read Martin, since his books require patience. Page turners they aren't - at least not to me. Also, while tempting to scan and skim, you will regret it later, as I have discovered the hard way. Right now? I'm enjoying it -
But I've also spent the last two chapters in Samwell Tarwell and Brienne's points of view. Likable characters.
Ceresi isn't that bad either at the moment. Granted, after reading three chapters in points of view that are foreign to me and I don't care about at all - Cersei was a welcome relief. Also, I'm invested emotionally in the dual character arcs of Jamie and Tyrion Lannister - and her involvement with them. It's interesting. One brother - her twin - she sees as her protector and
comfort, and partner, the other a constant threat and her undoing. One she uses and manipulates, the other she fears. And in her head? She's her father's heir and his true son. All her life, she's been in competition with her brother's for her father, for his power, and his love and admiration. In many ways, Ceresi is Tywin Lannister's creation.
My current problem with this book is a problem I'm having with a lot of stories at the moment, the current obsession with fanatical religion. Yes, I get that it is a topical issue, but seriously, there's such a thing as a saturation point. After a bit this becomes a tad cliche. In Feast - we have one too many fanatical religious orgs in power. Everyone is nutty over religion. It's a relief when you hit upon people who aren't.
[It's probably worth noting, I'm only 10% into the book, which means I'm roughly 100 pages maybe a bit more into it.]
But the book is compelling to me. I like this sort of fantasy. It's dark and gritty. The characters gloriously complicated. There are issues...of course. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment that none of the characters are starkly good or evil. Maybe none are clearly good, but there are a few that seem to be almost irredeemably bad...such as Cersei. OR maybe it's the madness.
I don't agree with some of the rabid feminists who despise the books. Although, I'm not sure they've actually read them. The books have some extremely interesting and various female characters. (Brienne, Ayra, Gilly, Sansa, Daenrys, Asha, Obara, Meliandsara, Val, Dalle, Catelynn, and Cersei to name a few). Martin creates as many interesting and diverse women as he does men, and they aren't all beautiful or male sex objects, quite a few aren't. He does a good job of describing how they struggle in world where male power dominates. The Medieval period is actually a good period to choose for this type of fantasy...it provides a way of exploring the power dynamics...of those who are not physically strong and capable vs. those that are. Intellect vs. Brute Strength is a key theme. And how people who we may perceive as weak or victims can surprise you. In Martin's novels brute strength does not necessarily equal power. If anything I think Martin is fairly equal in his handling of gender. More so actually than some female writers out there.
As for the writing...it's dense, but not pretty. I'm not a fan of pretty prose - beautiful poetic sentences that wander and play at the page's edge. Okay, maybe I am. But I'm leery of it. We writers have a tendency to fall in love with our own poetic prose forgetting the prose is supposed to further the tale, communicate it to a reader, not well be pretty. I include myself in that category by the way. Too often I've found myself distracted by a poetic turn of phrase, that I will lose my train of thought and wander off. Instead of communicating what is inside my mind, or
telling the truth, I'll let the poetry of the sentence win out. Which is not communication, it is masturbation. And we have a habit of awarding it far too often. (I think I've done it a few times in this post, sorry about that.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 03:31 am (UTC)Bwha!
And accurate!
Re: Fringe, Season 1 is actually rather unimpressive for the most part, and in many places is a direct X-Files rip-off until it begins developing it's own mythology which doesn't start until near the end of the season.
I'd actually advise skipping most of Season 1. I'd probably start with:
Season 1, Ep 14 "Ability" (not because it's particularly great, but because it pulls the thread that begins the unraveling of one of the core issues in the show). Then, skip to...
Season 1, Ep 17 "Bad Dreams" (as it picks up the plot thread from 14) and again skip to...
The two-ep finale, Ep 19 & 20 "The Road Not Taken" and "There's More Than One Of Everything"
These are the episodes that are setting up the mythology of the show that actually becomes the story as the show progresses.
Most of season 1 is largely expendable. But those episodes set up Olivia's and Walter's background and the central struggle of the series.
(And the ship actually does get together. More than once actually... It's complicated. )
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 04:09 pm (UTC)Or something like that?
When I tried the first round, I gave up around episode 5 or 6.
I think netflix may already be sending me discs 1-2. So too late on that score.
And no access to netflix from work.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 10:51 pm (UTC)(And the ship actually does get together. More than once actually... It's complicated. )
Sort of like Farscape.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 05:34 am (UTC)I found the critique that there is so much rape in the books especially stupid. Martin's aim is to describe a medieval war in a realistic way. I'd have a problem if he tried to paint it pretty how those things went down for women.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 04:21 pm (UTC)Agreed. Also there really isn't all that much considering the time period and situation. I was actually surprised.
Expected more graphic depictions. The TV series is oddly more graphic in this regard than the books are, possibly because it's HBO.
Also there's a big difference between a "realistic" depiction and a "exploitative or gratitutious one".
(See countless tv/book crime procedurals...that feel the need to show a serial killer torturing and raping a woman once a week.)
Nothing they said sounded feminist to me even if they tried to dress it up as such.
Agree. Reminds me a little of the so-called feminists in under-grad who used to whine about Westerns (specifically John Wayne Westerns) and noir films - which they felt were anti-feminist. Yes, some were, but not all. And I've read literary, sci-fi, mystery, chick-lit and romance novels that aren't exactly feminist...too. It's not necessarily genre.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 04:26 pm (UTC)So they played that they were most of the first and a good portion of the second season. Or tried too.
Apparently whether they did in the one episode in S1 when they go to the false earth? Wasn't clear to US audiences - since they cut out portions of the episode for length. But it was obvious to European audiences. Also is obvious on the DVDs. (Stupid Syfy).
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 10:47 pm (UTC)It doesn't quite work...since both Crichton and Aeryn are pretty
open about casual sex.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 01:23 pm (UTC)Hell yeah. As a rabid Lynch fan, I'm pretty tired of people using his name as a synonym for bad writing and incomprehensible plots. It's like claiming that a musician who can't play his instrument is really playing advanced jazz. He's not; he just sucks.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-02 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-03 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 12:58 am (UTC)