![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatCrisp cool day that began with me hugging my alarm clock (literally) and ended with a beautiful clear sunset out my windows.
The hugging alarm clock bit was due to me being only partially awakened by it - while wrestling to shut it off - I fell asleep, woke up, luckily 45 minutes later (6:51 am) and raced about to make to the subway by 7:18, made it to the train station by 7:35, and caught the train to Jamaica. In to work at 8:05, right after my boss - five minutes late, not bad. But very weird to wake up hugging one's alarm clock.
Am debating exploring areas of Brooklyn this weekend to determine new places to hunt for apartments in. Have been invited by a friend from church to check out an area around Brooklyn College. There's apparently some affordable condos out where she lives. But she just moved...might be better to wait a week.
Never know how personal to be in this lj. I think I tend to stick in the middle, flocking the ultra personal posts.
Still making my way through GRR Martin's Feast of Crows - which is a fascinating read, if somewhat of a downer.
No one is doing well or getting what they want in this book. Nor is there much hope they will. This however, considering the time period it is placed, is actually realistic. The Middle Ages weren't called the Dark Ages for nothing, after all. Always found that period of history to be depressing and grim, which I suppose is why it's decidedly odd that most fantasy novels (outside of modern urban fantasy which is a whole trope in of itself) take place in it. Usually they white-wash the time period or romanticize it - a la The Morte d'Arthur or Camelot. George RR Martin apparently fell in love with the War of Roses history books and wanted to write a fictional account. If you've read his blog, you know he collects toy soliders and has recreated and restaged the battles with these soliders in detail. The man has read extensively on the period and feels the need to put everything he knows about it into the books. Curious why he chose to do fantasy and not just historical? Fantasy is admittedly more fun - you can do zombies, dragons, and magic in fantasy. Although these books feel more political than fantastical, which is why I find them compelling or rather more compelling than some fantasy novels. In some respects they remind of Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond Series, except less romantic and a lot gorier and far more grim.
The complaint that bloggers and others have made about the women? I think I figured something out on that. I was reading Brienne's pov - and she goes into detail about how a bunch of guys cruelly teased her. It's all told in flashback. Most of the action in these books occurs in flashback or the pov character remembering the event. Very little of the action happens on stage. It's either reported in a letter, or told as a rumor, or a flashback. Makes for a very passive narrative - which has its pluses and minuses. Martin is actually very good at flashback passive narration, in that it does contain a certain level of emotional resonance. And this type of narrative style is not without precedence. On the other hand - it also distances the reader from the emotional impact of the event - it happened in the past (often the distant past) - and the character is merely remembering it. Sure, it aids the reader in understanding the character's motivation better, but Martin appears to prefer it to actual "action". I feel like I'm being "told" what has happened, as opposed to witnessing it happening or seeing it happen. Not quite tell not show, but very close. That said? He is admittedly very good at it. But I suspect it does make it difficult on the people attempting to adapt this thing for a tv show. I mean - how do you adapt a passive narrative, where everything that takes place is either in flashback or talked about after the fact in idle conversation, into a visual "active" narrative on a tv screen? Now that's a fascinating challenge. It also may be the reason I prefer the tv series to the books - it's more emotionally satisfying, I'm less distanced from the narrative.
But back to the bit about women, sorry for the tangent. Brienne is remembering back, and the description of how men treat women - specifically these men - is painful. Randall Tarly (who we already know from Sam's pov, Sam being his son and terrified of him, is a nightmare) basically tells Brienne in the flashback that it would serve her right to get raped (although he prevented it) since she's trying to be a fighter, when that's the men's role, women are supposed to fight in the birthing bed - giving birth. He doesn't say it that nicely. I can see how that statement would push a reader's buttons - but it is a statement coming directly from the mouth of a character not the writer. And a character that is far from likable. If anything it makes the men sound horrible, not the women. Shallow to boot. But it is also realistic. Men say those things. So do women for that matter. And they do it today. (No, unfortunately, we have not all evolved past these base primitive attitudes. Some people are still living in the Dark Ages.) But I don't think you can say based on this that Martin thinks this way - that horrible character does. It's sort of like saying Joss Whedon is a misogynist for creating woman-hating Caleb, which is just silly. Reminds me of a statement that Kristin Cashore made on her blog a few months ago - that the writer isn't his or her characters. And a statement made by a character is not what the writer thinks. Martin has written a dark series of books, with a lot of unsavory characters capable of horrible deeds, his fantasy tales fall in the horror category or next to it. And yes, women are treated badly by the male characters, but the male characters are also treated badly. Randall Tarly, when Brienne meets up with him again is busy chopping off a man's fingers for stealing something. Brienne actually comes across as fairly heroic...is she referred to as ugly constantly? Yes. But by nasty men. If anything it makes the men look bad, not Brienne. People's perceptions on things, often bewilder me. (And yes, before you think it, I'm certain my perceptions bewilder them too.)
At any rate, I can sort of see why someone reading that chapter might think women were treated or shown in a negative light in the books and it rubbed them the wrong way towards Martin, much in the same way that I think the episode of Buffy, Seeing Red rubbed people the wrong way, or the Caleb character. It depends on how you interpret the authorial intent, I suspect.
This week's Grey's Anatomy was hilarious - well if you are geek and got the jokes. Or know geeks and got the jokes. Although I do resent the fact that in all these series none of the leads or regulars are geeks. Hello, completely unrealistic. The stereotype that all geeks wear horn-rimmed glasses, are under the age of 30, and look like Kevin Smith is such a stereotype.
It's ironic considering most of the writers are geeks - do they just have poor self-esteems or something? (Nothing against Kevin Smith - who is a multi-millionaire). Anyhow they bring in this bus-load of comic-con/sci-fi convention attendees who got in a serious accident. One is wearing hobbit ears, another is in a storm-trooper outfit. And the best two are arguing over a toy tardis.
Guy with Ear Chopped off: So, I lost my ear, at least we got the Tardis! The last and only one.
His roommate, wearing a Watchmen Logo T-Shirt, with smirking Smily Face: No, I got the Tardis. (The Tardis is in a box, with a picture on the front of a blue British police phone-box - just in case there's anyone reading this journal who has no clue what a Tardis is.)
Guy with Ear off: You betrayed me! That's my Tardis!
Doctors - calm down, we can restore the ear.
Later...
Guy with Ear Chopped Off (ECO) : So what did you do with the Tardis?
Roommate: I found your ear, looked for it all night, it was stuck to the helmet.
Guy with ECO: You sold the Tardis, didn't you?
Roommate (sheepishly): no, no...it's in the middle of our room, fine.
Guy with ECO: You lie, you sold it! How could you!
Later...
Roommate: Look, okay, I sold the Tardis. For the medical bills..
Guy with ear back on: How much?
Roommate: $7500
Guy with ear back on: You got ripped off.
Meanwhile...
Guy with hobbit ears finally gets up the nerve to talk to Dr. Kepner who reminds him of a Dothraki princess from a series of popular fantasy novels after she's thanked him for saving her: It's what a brave hobbit would do.
Kepner : Uh...I don't know anything about hobbits, bye. And thanks.
Geek Girl: Doesn't know anything about hobbits? They are only the lead characters in one of the best novels of all time.
And the top-grossing series of films. What rock has she been under. How can't she know anything about hobbits.
Hee. It's odd, but I find myself laughing more and a lot harder at dramas than I do situation comedies. I guess because the jokes are less telegraphed and more unsuspected. I don't feel the pressure to laugh. It's a surprise. Or ...sitcoms just aren't as funny as dramas? Or I have a bizarre sense of humor? (don't answer that.)
The hugging alarm clock bit was due to me being only partially awakened by it - while wrestling to shut it off - I fell asleep, woke up, luckily 45 minutes later (6:51 am) and raced about to make to the subway by 7:18, made it to the train station by 7:35, and caught the train to Jamaica. In to work at 8:05, right after my boss - five minutes late, not bad. But very weird to wake up hugging one's alarm clock.
Am debating exploring areas of Brooklyn this weekend to determine new places to hunt for apartments in. Have been invited by a friend from church to check out an area around Brooklyn College. There's apparently some affordable condos out where she lives. But she just moved...might be better to wait a week.
Never know how personal to be in this lj. I think I tend to stick in the middle, flocking the ultra personal posts.
Still making my way through GRR Martin's Feast of Crows - which is a fascinating read, if somewhat of a downer.
No one is doing well or getting what they want in this book. Nor is there much hope they will. This however, considering the time period it is placed, is actually realistic. The Middle Ages weren't called the Dark Ages for nothing, after all. Always found that period of history to be depressing and grim, which I suppose is why it's decidedly odd that most fantasy novels (outside of modern urban fantasy which is a whole trope in of itself) take place in it. Usually they white-wash the time period or romanticize it - a la The Morte d'Arthur or Camelot. George RR Martin apparently fell in love with the War of Roses history books and wanted to write a fictional account. If you've read his blog, you know he collects toy soliders and has recreated and restaged the battles with these soliders in detail. The man has read extensively on the period and feels the need to put everything he knows about it into the books. Curious why he chose to do fantasy and not just historical? Fantasy is admittedly more fun - you can do zombies, dragons, and magic in fantasy. Although these books feel more political than fantastical, which is why I find them compelling or rather more compelling than some fantasy novels. In some respects they remind of Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond Series, except less romantic and a lot gorier and far more grim.
The complaint that bloggers and others have made about the women? I think I figured something out on that. I was reading Brienne's pov - and she goes into detail about how a bunch of guys cruelly teased her. It's all told in flashback. Most of the action in these books occurs in flashback or the pov character remembering the event. Very little of the action happens on stage. It's either reported in a letter, or told as a rumor, or a flashback. Makes for a very passive narrative - which has its pluses and minuses. Martin is actually very good at flashback passive narration, in that it does contain a certain level of emotional resonance. And this type of narrative style is not without precedence. On the other hand - it also distances the reader from the emotional impact of the event - it happened in the past (often the distant past) - and the character is merely remembering it. Sure, it aids the reader in understanding the character's motivation better, but Martin appears to prefer it to actual "action". I feel like I'm being "told" what has happened, as opposed to witnessing it happening or seeing it happen. Not quite tell not show, but very close. That said? He is admittedly very good at it. But I suspect it does make it difficult on the people attempting to adapt this thing for a tv show. I mean - how do you adapt a passive narrative, where everything that takes place is either in flashback or talked about after the fact in idle conversation, into a visual "active" narrative on a tv screen? Now that's a fascinating challenge. It also may be the reason I prefer the tv series to the books - it's more emotionally satisfying, I'm less distanced from the narrative.
But back to the bit about women, sorry for the tangent. Brienne is remembering back, and the description of how men treat women - specifically these men - is painful. Randall Tarly (who we already know from Sam's pov, Sam being his son and terrified of him, is a nightmare) basically tells Brienne in the flashback that it would serve her right to get raped (although he prevented it) since she's trying to be a fighter, when that's the men's role, women are supposed to fight in the birthing bed - giving birth. He doesn't say it that nicely. I can see how that statement would push a reader's buttons - but it is a statement coming directly from the mouth of a character not the writer. And a character that is far from likable. If anything it makes the men sound horrible, not the women. Shallow to boot. But it is also realistic. Men say those things. So do women for that matter. And they do it today. (No, unfortunately, we have not all evolved past these base primitive attitudes. Some people are still living in the Dark Ages.) But I don't think you can say based on this that Martin thinks this way - that horrible character does. It's sort of like saying Joss Whedon is a misogynist for creating woman-hating Caleb, which is just silly. Reminds me of a statement that Kristin Cashore made on her blog a few months ago - that the writer isn't his or her characters. And a statement made by a character is not what the writer thinks. Martin has written a dark series of books, with a lot of unsavory characters capable of horrible deeds, his fantasy tales fall in the horror category or next to it. And yes, women are treated badly by the male characters, but the male characters are also treated badly. Randall Tarly, when Brienne meets up with him again is busy chopping off a man's fingers for stealing something. Brienne actually comes across as fairly heroic...is she referred to as ugly constantly? Yes. But by nasty men. If anything it makes the men look bad, not Brienne. People's perceptions on things, often bewilder me. (And yes, before you think it, I'm certain my perceptions bewilder them too.)
At any rate, I can sort of see why someone reading that chapter might think women were treated or shown in a negative light in the books and it rubbed them the wrong way towards Martin, much in the same way that I think the episode of Buffy, Seeing Red rubbed people the wrong way, or the Caleb character. It depends on how you interpret the authorial intent, I suspect.
This week's Grey's Anatomy was hilarious - well if you are geek and got the jokes. Or know geeks and got the jokes. Although I do resent the fact that in all these series none of the leads or regulars are geeks. Hello, completely unrealistic. The stereotype that all geeks wear horn-rimmed glasses, are under the age of 30, and look like Kevin Smith is such a stereotype.
It's ironic considering most of the writers are geeks - do they just have poor self-esteems or something? (Nothing against Kevin Smith - who is a multi-millionaire). Anyhow they bring in this bus-load of comic-con/sci-fi convention attendees who got in a serious accident. One is wearing hobbit ears, another is in a storm-trooper outfit. And the best two are arguing over a toy tardis.
Guy with Ear Chopped off: So, I lost my ear, at least we got the Tardis! The last and only one.
His roommate, wearing a Watchmen Logo T-Shirt, with smirking Smily Face: No, I got the Tardis. (The Tardis is in a box, with a picture on the front of a blue British police phone-box - just in case there's anyone reading this journal who has no clue what a Tardis is.)
Guy with Ear off: You betrayed me! That's my Tardis!
Doctors - calm down, we can restore the ear.
Later...
Guy with Ear Chopped Off (ECO) : So what did you do with the Tardis?
Roommate: I found your ear, looked for it all night, it was stuck to the helmet.
Guy with ECO: You sold the Tardis, didn't you?
Roommate (sheepishly): no, no...it's in the middle of our room, fine.
Guy with ECO: You lie, you sold it! How could you!
Later...
Roommate: Look, okay, I sold the Tardis. For the medical bills..
Guy with ear back on: How much?
Roommate: $7500
Guy with ear back on: You got ripped off.
Meanwhile...
Guy with hobbit ears finally gets up the nerve to talk to Dr. Kepner who reminds him of a Dothraki princess from a series of popular fantasy novels after she's thanked him for saving her: It's what a brave hobbit would do.
Kepner : Uh...I don't know anything about hobbits, bye. And thanks.
Geek Girl: Doesn't know anything about hobbits? They are only the lead characters in one of the best novels of all time.
And the top-grossing series of films. What rock has she been under. How can't she know anything about hobbits.
Hee. It's odd, but I find myself laughing more and a lot harder at dramas than I do situation comedies. I guess because the jokes are less telegraphed and more unsuspected. I don't feel the pressure to laugh. It's a surprise. Or ...sitcoms just aren't as funny as dramas? Or I have a bizarre sense of humor? (don't answer that.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-08 07:10 am (UTC)Tome there are two types of fictional writing that are interesting feministically. One is writing about the solution and one is highlighting the problem.
I like it when people try to write true equality in relationships and place women in atypical roles etc., but it is equally important to show the problem. There is such a thing as rape culture, a compleatly base meanness with which some men attempt to keep women in their box.
And to me it is often more misogynist to pretend these things don't exist than to describe them in gory detail. I think the people who try to construct that Martin is writing down some misogynist fantasy instead of a mirror image of a misogynist reality are just ignorant. And to be honest none of these critiques ammounts to much more then people hating fantasy just cause and searching desperately for a reason.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-08 02:19 pm (UTC)Yes and no. In the case of Gina Bellafante of the NY Times, I agree, but I don't think this is true of all of them.
There are people who like fantasy but don't like Martin, and people who hate fantasy and love Martin. In fact, I've heard the comment from people - "oh, I always thought fantasy was just elves, and fairies, and hobbits and this pristine magical world - this feels so much more realistic and real! So much better than that sword and sorcery crap or Tolkien." (Being someone who likes both, I find this comment equally irritating.)
It really isn't that cut and dried, I don't think. Some people prefer fantasies that are less "realistic" to the time period.
It's not unlike visual art - some people prefer the realists - paintings that are so detailed they are almost photographic images, exact, or hyper-realists which examine in great detail a certain aspect of that reality and enlarge it, while others prefer the impressionists or abstract artists which comment on reality or reinterpret it.
TV is the same way. I was discussing this with a friend last weekend. Who stated that she loved Criminal Minds even though it gave her nightmares. It felt real to her. And she could face her fear of serial killers head on (she came from an area of the country that produced the most serial killers). OTOH - she did not like "Fringe" or "Buffy", both felt unreal to her. Or she disliked
"Revenge" - again it was "unreal" and romanticized something she despised (she'd never seen it - was going by the previews and title). While I, saw the opposite - I found Criminal Minds to be disgusting, because it got the information wrong - it was depicting reality, but skimping on the investigative details. Also it got off on depicting these things for entertainment. Serial killer procedurals bug me, because outside of very few, they depict a skewed reality. I prefer the honesty of Buffy. But, I can see why my friend sees it the exact opposite. And there are people on my flist, who don't see it either way, and think we're both nuts. ;-)
So I don't think we can generalize or make a value judgment on this reaction...even if it is incredibly tempting to do so. But I do keep trying to understand it. Because the reaction reminds me of the reaction many viewers had to "Seeing Red" in S6 and well all of S6 Buffy - they felt Whedon's depiction of the attempted rape and then how he handled Spike afterwards, culminating in the episodes Lies My Parents Told Me and later...Chosen - was the opposite of feminist and Whedon's message. They had a strong visceral reaction to the content not unlike my own reaction to the last 8 issues of S8 Buffy. While it is tempting for me to call Whedon misogynistic or just "sexist", I honestly think he is merely exaggerating a reality and holding it up as a mirror - it's just a mirror that I (a) am already very aware of and really don't need held up and (b) find annoying that a white privileged guy is holding, not to mention patronizing. But...I'm equally aware that there are people out there who feel the same way about George RR Martin.
The difficulty, I have at any rate, is being able to
tolerate an interpretation that is so counter and different to my own that it borders in my view at least, on troll logic. But if I can understand that pov, then I can better tolerate it and maybe even appreciate it. (Hence all the posts discussing this sort of thing.) ;-)