![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSystems were down at work today. Somewhat sluggish week, but after last week, it provides me with the time to get some other things done. Also less people intense. On apt front? Back looking again with agent, while landlord has finally hired an exterminator to get rid of the mice (which I've not seen for two years, but whatever). I think I'm in a writer mull, not a block, just sort of mullish quicksand. Brain won't work. Words are stuck in my head like in mud or I'm skipping over them. I blame work, although in the current climate, one, I suppose, should be grateful for work. And I am, actually. Best and highest paying job I've ever had. Sure the locale could be better - but it's odd when it comes to work, I don't much care where it is located, and am fairly flexible. Just so long as my commute is no more than an hour - and I can get there by train, no cars or buses, everything is fine and dandy.
1. Forgot to take a picture of the rows of miniature American flags that are still hanging from every stoop on my block. Now, I have nothing against the American flag or waving it, but having it hang outside my apartment makes me uncomfortable for some reason. I guess that I'm half afraid someone might mistake me for being either insanely patriotic or jingoistic. "It's a grand ole flag, it's high flying flag!" or Johnny Cash's hymn..."Damn proud of the ragged old flag." See the thing of it is? Patriotism to me, at least after 9/11, seems almost synonymous with warfare and discord. It's so "tribal". My tribe is better than your tribe. Or my nation is better than yours. It feels a bit like hanging a big sign on your door - only "these people" are welcome here. I don't believe that is what the American flag is meant to represent - I was taught it was meant to represent freedom and acceptance of all people. After-all it waved during the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and WWII with much acclaim. But it's been tarnished a bit in the passing years...and seems to symbolize negative more than the positive - in the days after 9/11 it symbolized American unity, which works and is amazing, but not American unity against The World. The US vs. THEM mentality always stuck in my craw. And I guess it's hard...even though I know that was not the intent of those who hung the flag on my stoop (we have a fairly diverse, multi-racial, and multi-cultural block), it still oddly radiates that sensibility.
But enuf politics...
2. With all the posts about tv shows online lately, yes, I know when aren't there lots of posts about tv shows online? Well maybe when there are lots of posts about politics, movies and comic books? I tend to focus on the entertainment related posts - because it serves as a better distraction than personal posts do.
Anywho...I've been thinking about things that will take me out of a story, or make it difficult for me to continue watching, reading, or listening. I'd say it was the writing, but honestly? It depends. A story can be horribly plotted or somewhat amateurish, yet if there's a character that is written in an interesting manner? I'm there. The opposite is also true - a story could be brilliantly plotted, excellent dialogue, and beautiful prose - snaps and crackles in all the right places - but if the characters rub me the wrong way - I'm gone. Often, oddly, it does come down to characters and on television? Characters and performance. Yet, there have been cases in which the plot is so bad or so offensive to me that even though I love the characters and want to know what happens to them? I can't stick with the story. Just can't. And after a while, I'll stop caring about the characters due to the plot and just give up. Vice versa - there have been instances in which the plot is so twisty and so new, that even though I can't really connect to the characters - I'll stick with it, because the writing blows me away. (In this case I'm usually just ambivalent about the characters - I do not hate or despise them, they don't rub me the wrong way.)
So narrowing it down? I'd say it really is about the characters, how they are performed, written, depicted, and constructed, what their arcs are and how that arc plays out. Which brings me to the next question what is it that turns me off of a character? And can I really define it. (Someone reading this, assuming they got this far, is probably thinking...and I care, because? Why are you even analyzing this? You either like it or hate it. Done. Which is a valid point. But understanding why I hate or like things, helps me understand others tastes better...and be more tolerant. It also helps me figure out what works for me in writing and creating a character or character trope and what does not work. That and I'm a frustrated psych major, but we've covered that in previous posts.)
Characters that turn me off or rub me the wrong way, aren't what you'd think...for example I really don't have much problem with characters that do evil things - such rape, pillage, murder, etc. It's often why they do these things that means more to me. The thing in of itself isn't an issue. Nor do I have issues with anti-heroes or irredeemable characters - as long as they aren't one dimensional, we're fine.
No. For me? It's how the character is written and performed. What follows is an explanation with examples of three big turn-offs or what takes me out of a story. In short turn-offs that are fairly subjective and perception based. Not turn-offs like bad grammar.
a.Are they whiny? Otherwise known as the Scarlett O'Hara syndrom.
I can't abide whiny characters - I've inherited this from my mother and grandmother, who drilled it into my head at the ripe old age of five - do NOT whine. Both hated Scarlett O'Hara with a passion. And not for the reasons you'd think. They did not care how many men she slept with, that she plotted, stole, lied, manipulated, or was racist as all get out. No - she was whiny. Granted she may have had some cause to be whiny at one point, but she is whiny literally through the entire book and film. Every time the movie came on, usually around Easter time for some reason, this was pointed out to me.
Of course perception plays a part in this - not everyone perceives characters in the same way. For example - I saw Ziggy in The Wire as whiny and he got on my nerves, but I'm guessing not everyone did. Same with Walt, Skylar, Anna (Sky's sis - and I'm not sure I got the name right), Hank, and Jesse - all five characters, including the non-leads, are whiny and not just a little bit, they are whiny with a capital "W". (We basically have five Scarlett O'Hara's, Melody's and Ashley Wilke's for the price of one.) But most people loving this show? Don't perceive these characters as whiny at all and probably thinking - what planet are you on? (It has a lot to do with experiences as well - I worked for a few years in legal aid and defender projects, and dealt with a lot of people like Jesse and Walt, also have met a few people who well fall into that category.
So it's red-hot button for me. And I've known several people who have had cancer or died of it - brutally. Plus been unemployed for long stretches of time. My Aunt and Uncle went through what Walt and Skyler did, but they didn't whine about it. I know, one shouldn't compare, but it is hard not to, and it pushes a button.) Had the same reaction to Ziggy in The Wire.
Also, it's worth noting that I struggled at times with some of the Buffy characters...Buffy herself often felt whiny to me in the early seasons, less so later. While I know there are people who think the exact opposite.
Examples of characters in books that come across whiny? Outside of Scarlett O'Hara. Are all the characters in House of Sand and Fog, and Atonement. Both books were critical successes, acclaimed, everyone loved them to pieces. I barely finished them and spent most of my time railing at the characters. Another example is "Ceresi" in the George RR Martin books - this character whines incessantly. She's interesting, but very whiny. Very Scarlett O'Hara. Who, is admittedly a beloved character of many. I'm guessing I probably would not like Anna Karenia all that much.
b. Are they painfully Smug?
The other thing that turns me off is "smugness", especially "entitled" smugness. Smug characters or performed by actors who convey a certain level of "smugness" bug me as well. It's why I can't watch Bones and Body of Proof - both the lead female characters and actors playing them come across as "smug". I don't quite know why. But they do. There's something about the character...possibly they remind me of someone...it's hard to say. Smugness is harder to define than whiny. And is far subleter.
Aaron Sorkin occasionally comes across like this in his writing - The Social Network felt a bit smug. As does the writer of Juno - there was underlying smugness to the lead and the story, too clever, too...aware of its own cleverness - which took me out of the story.
c. Has the story and/or characters become too Preachy?
A fine line. Taken too far...it turns story and characters into allegory. A perfect example is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead - which are filled with speeches and her philosophy. To the point that you want to say, yes, I get it - more story, less preaching, please.
David E. Kelly, Ryan Murphy, Ron Moore, Stephen Bocho, Stephen Spielberg, Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin all have tread across this line from time to time. Brilliant at dialogue, and often great at big emotions, but once they got a fanbase - they also had a soap-box. It's insane, because unlike Ayn Rand, I actually agree with all of them politically and about what they are preaching about. But often they will sacrifice story, characters, and plot - for a theme or message. Instead of asking questions, they start providing answers. Perfect example is last season's Glee - where every other episode felt like a very special episode, with characters often acting out-of-character to further some "thematic" message. Another example is David E. Kelly's Picket Fences, by about the second or third season The Judge would give a lengthy sermon to the audience and characters, explaining the moral to us, just in case we missed it. Not to be outdone - Kelly continued in this vein in The Practice.
There are other things of course. But I'm tired and hungry, and I want to watch my guilty pleasure tv shows.
3.I'm slowly making my way through Feast of Crows, and maybe it's just me but Martin appears to be shipping Brienne and Jamie big time. If so, it's not going to work out. Brienne is on an impossible mission, which I'm half-hoping she doesn't succeed in - because I honestly don't think either Sansa or Ayra would be better off with Brienne or Jamie for that matter. I know she won't succeed. When reading Martin's books - it's always best to "Bet" against the character achieving what they want. Very rare for a character to succeed in these books. And even if they do? It's usually at a great price or does not turn out the way they wanted it too and they deeply regret it later. To call Martin's books grim and ponderous is an understatement, they make Tolkien look postively cheery in comparison. OTOH...I do like the characters or at least 50% of them..and find it compelling, even if it is most likely going to take me a year to read Feast and Dragon, by the time I finish Dragon, he will have finished the next book. Which has been the case to date. I seem to always be about two books behind Martin and well everyone else.
4.As an aside, not to continue flogging a dead horse but after reading a quote from HBO in EW about this...I can't resist:
Dear HBO,
Killing Ned Stark in Game of Thrones and Tara in True Blood is NOT the same thing. Ned Stark's death was book dictated. He was whiny and a big white guy. Tara was the best female character in True Blood, not in the books at all, and the only black female character who had a lead role - not to mention suddenly a lesbian/bisexual this year. Killing an old white dude in a cast filled with old white dudes, and killing a black female lesbian in a cast filled with old white dudes and hot white gals, is well different. If you can't figure that out? You have a problem. Not to be politically correct or anything, but honestly...True Blood can't have it both ways - you can't do Civil Right's jokes and kill off or marginalize all your minority characters while adding more white characters - it's tacky.
Sigh. Are people really this oblivious?
1. Forgot to take a picture of the rows of miniature American flags that are still hanging from every stoop on my block. Now, I have nothing against the American flag or waving it, but having it hang outside my apartment makes me uncomfortable for some reason. I guess that I'm half afraid someone might mistake me for being either insanely patriotic or jingoistic. "It's a grand ole flag, it's high flying flag!" or Johnny Cash's hymn..."Damn proud of the ragged old flag." See the thing of it is? Patriotism to me, at least after 9/11, seems almost synonymous with warfare and discord. It's so "tribal". My tribe is better than your tribe. Or my nation is better than yours. It feels a bit like hanging a big sign on your door - only "these people" are welcome here. I don't believe that is what the American flag is meant to represent - I was taught it was meant to represent freedom and acceptance of all people. After-all it waved during the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and WWII with much acclaim. But it's been tarnished a bit in the passing years...and seems to symbolize negative more than the positive - in the days after 9/11 it symbolized American unity, which works and is amazing, but not American unity against The World. The US vs. THEM mentality always stuck in my craw. And I guess it's hard...even though I know that was not the intent of those who hung the flag on my stoop (we have a fairly diverse, multi-racial, and multi-cultural block), it still oddly radiates that sensibility.
But enuf politics...
2. With all the posts about tv shows online lately, yes, I know when aren't there lots of posts about tv shows online? Well maybe when there are lots of posts about politics, movies and comic books? I tend to focus on the entertainment related posts - because it serves as a better distraction than personal posts do.
Anywho...I've been thinking about things that will take me out of a story, or make it difficult for me to continue watching, reading, or listening. I'd say it was the writing, but honestly? It depends. A story can be horribly plotted or somewhat amateurish, yet if there's a character that is written in an interesting manner? I'm there. The opposite is also true - a story could be brilliantly plotted, excellent dialogue, and beautiful prose - snaps and crackles in all the right places - but if the characters rub me the wrong way - I'm gone. Often, oddly, it does come down to characters and on television? Characters and performance. Yet, there have been cases in which the plot is so bad or so offensive to me that even though I love the characters and want to know what happens to them? I can't stick with the story. Just can't. And after a while, I'll stop caring about the characters due to the plot and just give up. Vice versa - there have been instances in which the plot is so twisty and so new, that even though I can't really connect to the characters - I'll stick with it, because the writing blows me away. (In this case I'm usually just ambivalent about the characters - I do not hate or despise them, they don't rub me the wrong way.)
So narrowing it down? I'd say it really is about the characters, how they are performed, written, depicted, and constructed, what their arcs are and how that arc plays out. Which brings me to the next question what is it that turns me off of a character? And can I really define it. (Someone reading this, assuming they got this far, is probably thinking...and I care, because? Why are you even analyzing this? You either like it or hate it. Done. Which is a valid point. But understanding why I hate or like things, helps me understand others tastes better...and be more tolerant. It also helps me figure out what works for me in writing and creating a character or character trope and what does not work. That and I'm a frustrated psych major, but we've covered that in previous posts.)
Characters that turn me off or rub me the wrong way, aren't what you'd think...for example I really don't have much problem with characters that do evil things - such rape, pillage, murder, etc. It's often why they do these things that means more to me. The thing in of itself isn't an issue. Nor do I have issues with anti-heroes or irredeemable characters - as long as they aren't one dimensional, we're fine.
No. For me? It's how the character is written and performed. What follows is an explanation with examples of three big turn-offs or what takes me out of a story. In short turn-offs that are fairly subjective and perception based. Not turn-offs like bad grammar.
a.Are they whiny? Otherwise known as the Scarlett O'Hara syndrom.
I can't abide whiny characters - I've inherited this from my mother and grandmother, who drilled it into my head at the ripe old age of five - do NOT whine. Both hated Scarlett O'Hara with a passion. And not for the reasons you'd think. They did not care how many men she slept with, that she plotted, stole, lied, manipulated, or was racist as all get out. No - she was whiny. Granted she may have had some cause to be whiny at one point, but she is whiny literally through the entire book and film. Every time the movie came on, usually around Easter time for some reason, this was pointed out to me.
Of course perception plays a part in this - not everyone perceives characters in the same way. For example - I saw Ziggy in The Wire as whiny and he got on my nerves, but I'm guessing not everyone did. Same with Walt, Skylar, Anna (Sky's sis - and I'm not sure I got the name right), Hank, and Jesse - all five characters, including the non-leads, are whiny and not just a little bit, they are whiny with a capital "W". (We basically have five Scarlett O'Hara's, Melody's and Ashley Wilke's for the price of one.) But most people loving this show? Don't perceive these characters as whiny at all and probably thinking - what planet are you on? (It has a lot to do with experiences as well - I worked for a few years in legal aid and defender projects, and dealt with a lot of people like Jesse and Walt, also have met a few people who well fall into that category.
So it's red-hot button for me. And I've known several people who have had cancer or died of it - brutally. Plus been unemployed for long stretches of time. My Aunt and Uncle went through what Walt and Skyler did, but they didn't whine about it. I know, one shouldn't compare, but it is hard not to, and it pushes a button.) Had the same reaction to Ziggy in The Wire.
Also, it's worth noting that I struggled at times with some of the Buffy characters...Buffy herself often felt whiny to me in the early seasons, less so later. While I know there are people who think the exact opposite.
Examples of characters in books that come across whiny? Outside of Scarlett O'Hara. Are all the characters in House of Sand and Fog, and Atonement. Both books were critical successes, acclaimed, everyone loved them to pieces. I barely finished them and spent most of my time railing at the characters. Another example is "Ceresi" in the George RR Martin books - this character whines incessantly. She's interesting, but very whiny. Very Scarlett O'Hara. Who, is admittedly a beloved character of many. I'm guessing I probably would not like Anna Karenia all that much.
b. Are they painfully Smug?
The other thing that turns me off is "smugness", especially "entitled" smugness. Smug characters or performed by actors who convey a certain level of "smugness" bug me as well. It's why I can't watch Bones and Body of Proof - both the lead female characters and actors playing them come across as "smug". I don't quite know why. But they do. There's something about the character...possibly they remind me of someone...it's hard to say. Smugness is harder to define than whiny. And is far subleter.
Aaron Sorkin occasionally comes across like this in his writing - The Social Network felt a bit smug. As does the writer of Juno - there was underlying smugness to the lead and the story, too clever, too...aware of its own cleverness - which took me out of the story.
c. Has the story and/or characters become too Preachy?
A fine line. Taken too far...it turns story and characters into allegory. A perfect example is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead - which are filled with speeches and her philosophy. To the point that you want to say, yes, I get it - more story, less preaching, please.
David E. Kelly, Ryan Murphy, Ron Moore, Stephen Bocho, Stephen Spielberg, Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin all have tread across this line from time to time. Brilliant at dialogue, and often great at big emotions, but once they got a fanbase - they also had a soap-box. It's insane, because unlike Ayn Rand, I actually agree with all of them politically and about what they are preaching about. But often they will sacrifice story, characters, and plot - for a theme or message. Instead of asking questions, they start providing answers. Perfect example is last season's Glee - where every other episode felt like a very special episode, with characters often acting out-of-character to further some "thematic" message. Another example is David E. Kelly's Picket Fences, by about the second or third season The Judge would give a lengthy sermon to the audience and characters, explaining the moral to us, just in case we missed it. Not to be outdone - Kelly continued in this vein in The Practice.
There are other things of course. But I'm tired and hungry, and I want to watch my guilty pleasure tv shows.
3.I'm slowly making my way through Feast of Crows, and maybe it's just me but Martin appears to be shipping Brienne and Jamie big time. If so, it's not going to work out. Brienne is on an impossible mission, which I'm half-hoping she doesn't succeed in - because I honestly don't think either Sansa or Ayra would be better off with Brienne or Jamie for that matter. I know she won't succeed. When reading Martin's books - it's always best to "Bet" against the character achieving what they want. Very rare for a character to succeed in these books. And even if they do? It's usually at a great price or does not turn out the way they wanted it too and they deeply regret it later. To call Martin's books grim and ponderous is an understatement, they make Tolkien look postively cheery in comparison. OTOH...I do like the characters or at least 50% of them..and find it compelling, even if it is most likely going to take me a year to read Feast and Dragon, by the time I finish Dragon, he will have finished the next book. Which has been the case to date. I seem to always be about two books behind Martin and well everyone else.
4.As an aside, not to continue flogging a dead horse but after reading a quote from HBO in EW about this...I can't resist:
Dear HBO,
Killing Ned Stark in Game of Thrones and Tara in True Blood is NOT the same thing. Ned Stark's death was book dictated. He was whiny and a big white guy. Tara was the best female character in True Blood, not in the books at all, and the only black female character who had a lead role - not to mention suddenly a lesbian/bisexual this year. Killing an old white dude in a cast filled with old white dudes, and killing a black female lesbian in a cast filled with old white dudes and hot white gals, is well different. If you can't figure that out? You have a problem. Not to be politically correct or anything, but honestly...True Blood can't have it both ways - you can't do Civil Right's jokes and kill off or marginalize all your minority characters while adding more white characters - it's tacky.
Sigh. Are people really this oblivious?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-20 11:27 pm (UTC)Friends had just about convinced me to start reading Game of Thrones...
but then I read your post, and I am just not at all up to slogging through thousands of pages of "grim and ponderous".
I love the show on TV, but that is a lot less of a time commitment than reading the endless volumes (I think I'm getting very lazy in my old age).
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 04:29 pm (UTC)TV show is quite different than the books in some respects - it's far less detailed, the pacing is much better, some of the characters come across far more sympathetic - possibly because you aren't stuck in a singular point of view for fifty pages before jumping to a completely different point of view for twenty pages, and so on. Also far less jarring.
And more "focused". Add to that? Better sense of humor. There were bits in the tv series that were hilarious, which are more grim and ponderous in the books. Tyrion's scene with Lyssa is an example.
I think the tv series takes itself a little less seriously than Martin appears to, and that's a good thing.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 05:43 pm (UTC)And I think an actor can bring an lightness and satirical to a serious scene than makes the whole thing more lively and compelling....
(I've just seen this in other shows based on books, where I'd read the books, of course I haven't read any of these books).
Wonderful acting performances (and great direction) can make a huge difference.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 07:36 pm (UTC)In the case of Game, there's also the difference of not hearing or reading the character's thoughts. In the books, you read what each of the pov characters is thinking. ie. Tyrion thought...etc.
Which slows down the action. While in tv or in a film, the actor has to express those thoughts in another way.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 04:04 am (UTC)YES. Are people really trying to compare the two? That's...dumb.
And on top of the obvious reasons you stated, here is another difference: Ned's death has serious plot implications. He was in the middle of a lot of things, and even the TV-only people can see that his death sends events spinning off in new directions that wouldn't happen if he were alive (see: Robb as King in the North). Basically, his death serves major narrative purposes.
Tara? Her death does nothing other than serve as a source of pain for Sookie. She's been criminally underused -- plus it was the end of the season when all of the plots were already wrapped up -- so killing her doesn't change the thrust of the story. If it did, I may have been able to forgive the killing of a black bi/lesbian woman (in part because it would mean she'd been super important before, which would have been nice). But as it stands? This is just killing one of the minority characters for no reason other than ANGST.
I really hope she's not actually dead, or becomes a vampire or something.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 04:19 pm (UTC)Apparently. Here's the quote in EW:
Quips network president Sue Naegle, "HBO has a great history of playing with audience expectations. Certainly it existed in Game of Thrones this year. Poor Ned Stark lost his head."
The idiot woman can't see that - if they'd killed off Eric or Bill or Sookie - than yes, that would have been shocking! That would have been the equivalent to killing Ned. But killing Tara is...well exactly what you stated above. It was lazily written, the character was clearly killed off because the writers didn't know how to write her anymore and wanted to give the lead PAIN. It was pointless. And HBO is by no means the only network that has done that - they are just following the trend not bucking it like she likes to think.
Very telling remark from a network exec.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 12:36 am (UTC)c. Has the story and/or characters become too Preachy?
I take it you're not a fan of Trek, especially The Next Generation... Of course, that wouldn't fall under "become too preachy", more like "always has been".
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 04:10 pm (UTC)I'm sure some people see me as whiny. ;-)
At any rate - my difficulty with Buffy - was "the whine" about Angel which was non-stop for three years. Willow also got a bit whiny about her relationships. As did Xander. But ,that's a teen thing and actually realistic, so you have a point - Buffy' isn't a good example. Whedon tended to under-cut the whine with hilarious snark. So, the only truly whiny character on either series was Angel. Defined as - character who whines and/or mopes incessantly about his situation but never really does anything proactive to change it.
I take it you're not a fan of Trek, especially The Next Generation... Of course, that wouldn't fall under "become too preachy", more like "always has been".
Not at the moment, no. I used to be - but got burned out and can't rewatch. Loved STNG when it first aired though back in the 1980s and 1990s.
Wouldn't call it preachy so much as overly moralistic at times. But not really preachy.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 05:52 pm (UTC)What is the difference?
When someone says "preachy show", I first think of TNG. How many times did Picard or someone else lecture someone (usually aliens or 20th century humans, sometimes bad admirals etc.) about the ways of evolved humanity? Other Treks had a lot of those moments as well, but TNG was the champion of preachiness.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 07:28 pm (UTC)I remember Patrick Stewart commenting at the time that this was like doing old school morality plays and it was.
The story was thematic, and episodic in set up. Always was that way. It wasn't about the characters, it was about the theme. The characters served the theme and the message, as well as the plot.
Or what I like to call a "theme driven" or message driven series.
Compare with say - David E. Kelley - who wrote a serial with Picket Fences - out of nowhere we get a lecture from Ray Winston - the Judge moralizing. Or another example? Aaron Sorkin on the West Wing and especially in Sunset Strip - out of no-where, we get the "speech". It's a serial, character driven, but the writer decides to kick everything to the curb to serve his "message".
Again, it should be noted that I can't watch shows like STNG anymore - I find even those grating now. Once you've enjoyed subtle writing, there's no going back. ;-) Again YMMV.