4 Things Before Bed...Cotton Candy TV, EW articles, Erotica best-sellers

[shadowkat]

What can I say? It was one of those days. And yes, work is still driving me slowly insane.
But hey, can always be worse.

1. Not everyone does the star-crossed lovers thing well. Actually very few people seem to.
Just finished watching this week's Secret Circle and it's very silly. The teen lovers whose destiny is allegedly written in the stars, hooked up finally, and a bunch of black birds congregated in a cloud above the heroine's house. Right before this, the heroine's father informed the hero's father...that "written in the stars" also equaled...cue music...da da dum...a curse. I rolled my eyes and giggled.

I think Vamp Diaries works better because it focuses more on friendships and sibiling relationships than on romantic angst. The romantic angst has taken a back seat to the brother bonding after the first season. Romantic angst isn't something you want to drag out too long on a tv show...it becomes, well, overly melodramatic and silly.

Somewhat disappointed in Secret Circle - I was hoping for a bit more regarding the parents backgrounds than...well, romantic love triangles, or in this case a quadrangle.

*If Cassie almost killed Adam's Dad for trying to kill her's, what she's going to do to Diana's Dad and Faye's Mom when she discovers they murdered her Mom in order to get her there? Assuming she ever finds out. They sort of make Ethan look rather tame in comparison.

*Ethan and Adam look alike - that was excellent casting. Both have intense eyes. Curious, was Emilia really in love with Ethan or did he delude himself into thinking it? Did she really plot with Ethan to kill John Blackwell? Which in reality resulted in the deaths of
five other people?

*Adam (Thomas Dekker) broods better than the guy playing Jake, and is a better actor. Which makes it difficult for me to root for Jake.

*I still like the actress playing Faye best. She has chemistry with everybody. Also like Melissa. Cassie and Diana are getting on my nerves.

*Not sure how much longer I can hang in there with all the teen romantic angst...it's so poorly written and a bit on the silly side. (Buffy spoiled me, no one does teen romantic angst better than Buffy did, well maybe My So Called Life and Veronica Mars...). I'm admittedly only watching for the adults and their storyline is very thin.



Vamp Diaries continues to have fun plot-twists that actually track. This is hard to do on American TV Serials. I'm impressed. Also it has an attractive cast and cool guest stars. I rather adore the newest one, the boxing female vamp named Sage - a past love from Damon's past. Unlike Secret Circle - Vamp Diaries has wisely chosen to meld the adult's story with the kids. Actually, I rarely see the kids or the high-school setting. We're more focused on the older group.



We apparently are back to Joseph, Elijah and Rebecca as the remaining Originals. The others sort of dispersed, at least for now. Although the only original in tonight's episode was Rebecca. And she was a bit of fun - her by-play with Damon is interesting.
In some respects I prefer Damon when he's not mooning after Elena. The Damon/Stefan relationship is more interesting. (I was the same way about Spike and Angel - I found their relationship far more interesting than theirs with Buffy. They may not have been sibling's per se, but they written in that manner, also they had a lot more history - 100 years worth to fiddle around with. Sibling relationships are more complicated than romantic relationships, and are a lot longer...also, you can't choose them and you can't not be siblings. One cannot quite divorce one's sibiling. One can try, I suppose, but it never quite sticks.)

The Vamp Diaries does sibling relationships rather well. Seems to be the main focus of the series.

* This episode focused on what is going on with Alaric and the Lady Doctor, who apparently isn't the killer but is covering for Alaric and trying to help him. Alaric has died and come back one too many times due to that ring. And it's starting to affect him in weird ways. Just as it affected Elena's ancestors, the Gilbert's. He is suffering blackouts and doesn't remember what he's done. So...it is Alaric who killed those people, not the Lady Doc. She set him up, then cleared him, so that he wouldn't be suspected again. Interesting.

*Meanwhile, we have Damon and Stefan trying to figure out the mystery to get Alaric off the hook. And they more or less come to the same conclusions via their flashbacks to a previous serial killer, in 1912...who turns out to be Samatha Gilbert, whose journal
the Lady Doc had and Elena read - and is how they came to the same conclusion.
I rather liked that parallel structure. Also the twist, that it is the woman that Damon killed in the first scene of the flashback, but she survives due to the ring she's wearing.
In effect, he turns her into a killer. Just as Stefan accuses Damon of turning him into a killer - when Damon insists he feed on a girl. Damon's not addictive, Stefan is. Damon can do things in moderation, for Stefan it's all or nothing - extremes. Damon in turn, back in the 1900s, had accused Stefan of turning him in monster...but it is tongue in cheek. Sort of. In all three cases - a firm argument can be made that people have choices...you can choose what you become. Although, I'm not completely sure about Alaric. He was blacking out, sort of different, one would think.

At any rate, Stefan loses control much like Alaric does, and Samantha Gilbert - and goes on a killing spree. Damon tells Stefan that he needs to get past it. To be able to drink in moderation - not to kill whenever he does it. That going "cold turkey" isn't working.
It makes him too vulnerable. It can't be an all or nothing gambit. (I have mixed feelings about vampirism equals alcholism/addiction metaphor - but will admit that it is a much better metaphor than minorities. Actually I think vampire works best as a metaphor for sexual violence/seduction and addiction. Stick with the classics. When people start using it for disenfranchized minorities...things get dicey. Seriously, if you were a disenfranchized minority who has been demonized in our culture - would you want some white priveleged writer comparing you to vampires? I don't think so. )

Of course, after watching Being Human's take on the whole addiction metaphor ...it's sort of hard to take Vamp Diaries seriously. But I doubt that I'm supposed to. This isn't steak, this is cotton candy.

* I missed Caroline and Klaus this week. But they'll probably pop next week or the week after.

* Sage - way cool vampire. This show utilizes its guest stars fairly well. Also the twist of having Bonnie's Mom choose to be a vampire and not die, was a nice turn of events. Curious to see what happens when a witch becomes a vampire. Sage is a boxing female vampire, who teaches Damon how to lighten up and have fun. She may be responsible for snarky Damon...as opposed to brooding, stiff, Victorian Damon.


2. Happily Ever After...it's odd, horror writers, not all horror writers...just a few, hate the idea of happily ever after. They want tragedy. But Stephen King wrote it occasionally, and it does pop up in a few horror flicks. I guess it may depend on how you define happily ever after? Is it defined as everyone lives happily ever after? Or just the leads? Is it defined as "ever after" or just...the story happens to end on good or cheerful note? And how cheerful does it have to be? Can it still be cheerful if someone dies?

For example? I consider Harry Potter as ending happily ever after. Yeah, I know a lot of characters died in the last book, but none of the leads or core characters. Besides death in a story makes the story more real in some respects.

My Aunt, dead now, used to read the end of a book before she'd buy it or check it out from the library or even consider reading it. She wanted to make sure it ended happily. If it didn't, she didn't bother with it. We don't get spoilers on our own lives or those of our loved ones, I can sort of see why she wanted the comfort of knowing the characters in a story that she might fall in love with...would turn out alright.

Anyhow...here's a list of stories that in my opinion ended happily:
1. Star Trek
2. Battlestar Galatica V2 ( a lot of people hated how happily it ended)
3. Lost (ditto - seriously, you wonder sometimes, do people just want a depressing ending? Okay, I'm being disingenuous... I know people want a satisfactory ending, and sometimes happily or tragic for that matter doesn't necessarily equal satisfactory. If the plotting doesn't work for you...doesn't matter how happily or tragically it ends.)
4. The Hunger Games Triology (guess it depends on your pov?)
5. Farscape (ditto)
6. The Princess Bride
7. The Chronicles of Lymond by Dorothy Dunnett (I hated the twin half-sister and her lover...so in my opinion it ended happily.)
8. Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Persuasion
9. The Scarlette Pimpernell
10. Star Wars
11. Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (no wait that's Woody Allen) - Midsummer Night's Dream

Personally, I think you can write a bad tragedy just as easily as you can write a bad comedy or happy ending.


3. EW has huge article on Game of Thrones, with lots of pictures, and Game is on the cover. That series is hot. Deservedly so, in my opinion. While far from perfect, it is amongst the most entertaining tv serials I've seen to date. (Actually there is no perfect tv show on, I can find fault with all of them. People don't create perfect things. What I love about the Native American art - specifically the Navajo and Hopi...is they would deliberately place a flaw inside the middle of their art. Dreamcatchers and beaded jewelry always had one mistake inside it. It's how you can tell authenticity. The reason? To not do so - traps the evil spirit inside the work was one explanation, but the one I liked was that it doesn't reflect the beauty of nature. Nature is most beautiful in its own imperfections. From their pov, it is arrogant not to put in the imperfection.)

4) Anyhow...EW also has a review by Lisa Schwarzbaum - their film critic, who has fallen in love with the erotica "Fifty Shades of Grey by EL James", who according to the review began as a Twilight fanfic. (Schwarzbaum also loved the Twilight books or reviewed them favorably along with the films).

Here's a "memorable line" according to Schwarzbaum: "I'm panting loudly. All I can concentrate on is his voice and his touch. Nothing else is real. Nothing else matters, nothing else registers on my radar."

The plot? If Bella Swan had more gumption and sexual curiousity, she might be Anastasia Steele, Fifty Shades 21-year-old heroine, who quickly and decisively loses her virginity to an overpowering man but never relinquishes her fondness for girlish, clod-kicking expression "Holy Crap"! And if Edward Cullen weren't, well, a vampire, he might be Christian Grey, the fiendishly rich and handsome sexual festishist who plays Dominant to Ana's Submissive.

Seriously, did none of these women ever read Rosemary Rodgers or Kathleen Woodwiss?
Or for that matter, ever wander online and read fanfiction? Or try Anais Nin? Or pick up, gasp, Nancy Friday's Secret Garden and Forbidden Flowers in College (the female sex fantasy handbook)? Apparently not. I'm guessing The Joy of Sex is unknown to them as well. (It has pictures, although the guy is a bit on the dumpy side..) Although, to be fair, Schwarzbaum does list more, ahem, mainstream literary works such as The Story of O, Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty books (disappointing and somewhat repetitive), Toni Bently's Surrender, and Catherine Millet's The Sexual Life of Catherine M. (Sorry to say those books aren't very good. There's better stuff out there! Anyone who has read fanfic knows this...or romance novels for that matter. Also really cheap e-books at less than 99 cents.)

What throws me...is Vintage Books paid seven figures for the rights to the trilogy. 7 FIGURES!!! And it's become a hit. This woman has become a multi-millionaire turning an erotic Twilight fanfic into a novel. Fanfic Writing Friends of mine? Think of what you could do with your erotic fanfic!! (Although, I feel your pain. I just found out that someone has created a magazine for meta - just send your essays and meta to them and they may publish it. Damn. They couldn't have come up with this five years ago, when I had the time and mental energy to actually write essays and meta about tv shows and proof read it?
No, of course not. They decide to do it after I've lost all interest in writing meta and have 0 energy for it, and don't even want to look at, let alone read or proof the stuff I wrote. Ugh. So, yes, I feel your pain. )

It blows my mind that intelligent women are forking over money for this thing, when they can get better erotica for free. Are they that sheltered in their lives? That lacking in knowledge of what is out there? Also, don't they fantasize themselves?

Of course I feel the same way about the Twilight novels. Apparently when I was scratching my itch by reading Buffy fanfic, and a little Doctor Who fanfic, as well as a few incredibly cheap Kindle erotics ( no more than $2), along with romance novels, and my own imagination...these ladies were forking over $12 for "Fifty Shades of Grey". I sort of want to take Lisa, the reviewer by the hand, and say...uh, go here! Or at the very least...just point. And thank me later.

People? It's not hard to find cheap erotica. Some of it is free on Kindle. Not to mention the internet. I feel a need to launch into the Avenue Que diddy, "The Internet is For Porn". (Not that I've ever used it for that ;-) )

ETA: Out of curiousity - I looked it up on Amazon.com and the reviews are fascinating:

http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Shades-Grey-Book-Trilogy/product-reviews/0345803485/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1DQ3HP1WL1A92

They demonstrate that what we love has a lot to do with...very personal issues. The people who adore the book loved the innocent girl/misunderstood boy with parental issues and an abusive childhood romance. The one's who didn't...had issues with the innocent girl. And/or felt the story was unrealistic or silly. The whole girl falls for powerful/misunderstood dominant guy with an abusive childhood is a well-established romance trope. Whedon played with it in Buffy. Every daytime soap opera on the planet does it. And most romance novels. It's the woman saves the man or helps him through her love trope - this either turns you on or REALLY turns you off.

The book is about $9.47 for an e-reader. But the story line is very similar to about six other erotica books I've read for a lot less money. So, my advice? Play around a bit. OR save yourself time and money and just hop over to Nautibitz's site and download CRAVE.
CRAVE is a story about a 20 something woman who falls for a damaged man. And it has a lot more plot.



Off to bed. Tired.

Comments

[lizziebuffy2008.livejournal.com]

It is funny, I heard about "Fifty Shades of Grey" on the Today show a few weeks ago. I considered getting it, but then read some about it, read the reviews, and found out it had been a Twilight fanfic and decided it was not for me. Don't get me started on my opinions on Twilight...

Like you, I wonder what kind of rock these women are living under that they do not know about erotica that is easily found and that will feed pretty much any kink (for lack of a better word) that you want/have. It makes me wonder how this happened. I did not grow up in a particularly large city, but have been sexually curious for as long as I can remember. How did I approach that curiosity? I looked for things to read to educate (and later excite) myself. So, is this a by product of a society that does not read anymore?

Is it because I (we) do not have children, so have more time to think about me and what I want? Granted, I was probably 35, before I realized that it was ok to ask for what I wanted...Is it the turn that society has taken in the last 10 years; becoming more conservative, going back to the woman as a non-sexual being??? I don't know, but while the books do not interest me, at least they are getting women talking about sex, talking about fantasy, talking about their experiences or lack of, so maybe ultimately it is a good thing.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to wrap my brain around it as well. It's hard not to generalize about the readership, but one comment on Amazon made me pause. The responder was objecting to a reviewer who stated that people who liked this must not read a wide enough variety or very much erotica. The person who commented stated - "I loved Fifty Shades and Twilight, and I've read a lot of erotica and a broad range of books, I'd thank you not to generalize about my tastes or judge them." (Or something to that effect.)

It's not the fact that women are reading it that surprises me so much as the media's weird reaction to it, as if this is a new thing or hasn't been done before. And there isn't that much of it? Making me wonder once again about our media. Did somebody decide to inundate the media with press releases on the book? Whoever marketed this thing..has done a brilliant job. I had an art teacher once who bemoaned the fact that the bad artists always had the best business marketing sense and new how to market their work, while the excellent and interesting artists couldn't figure it out and as a result were rarely seen. (She's not wrong, with few exceptions, the best artist's work rarely is seen until after they are dead and some marketing whiz with good taste discovers it.)

We live in a world that is dominated by media and marketing. The most powerful entity is "the media". It's the US' main import - our media and communications. The richest industry in NYC is advertising and marketing/communications. How we package and market information.

And that entity is run mainly by men. Which may explain the reaction to Fifty Shades of Grey as well as Twilight...both books are tales about an innocent girl-woman (not a woman, but a girl on the cusp of womanhood) being educated in what it is to be a woman. Also the woman who wrote it is a television executive apparently (she also has two small children), as are the women hailing it. Women who work in male dominated fields, and fight daily. Who in their working lives must be stronger and more aggressive then their male colleagues to get ahead. My cousin is a quality engineer, the main provider in her family, and works as the supervisor of a lot of men in a manufacturing plant - she adored the Twilight novels, and probably would love this as well.

I've also noticed a pattern in these best-selling novelists...the writing is about second to third grade level. No big words. Very simple. Which is what they teach you to do in journalism - to write to a third grade audience reading level. You can scan a lot of it - so no concentration required. They tend to be fast reads. And the characters fit certain archetypes or tropes that are prevalent. Also class warfare is often an issue - usually rich guy, middle class girl or in the pulp male novels...rich gal/poor guy or sometimes its the poor guy taking down the rich guy with lots of bullets. Structurally the narrative is linear and easy as well. And? It ends happily.

The reader can get the book as an ebook, read it anywhere, specifically the bus or subway, and not have to work too hard to get the gist.

For people who have mentally and emotionally exhausting/stressful occupations
such as television, engineering, motherhood, etc...these books could well be a relief.

I struggle with it a little because...well I read this stuff at the age of 15.

And having talked to a lot of my relatives about it - many of whom did love the Twilight novels, I've realized something...they haven't had the time to read as much as I did, nor the opportunity, nor the educational background.
One Aunt is just getting around to reading pulp novels that I read as teen, in her 50s. She wasn't into reading as a teenager. While I read four books a week.

[lizziebuffy2008.livejournal.com]

It is funny, I actually have an engineering degree and used to have a fairly pressure filled life (not so much anymore.) I have to admit I did sometimes feel like an oddity in that world. I have always read a lot (not as much as you) and I found that in people my own age it could go either way; a voracious reader or not at all. People in the field younger than myself, tended not to read books at all. I remember the first time a classmate (they were all 10 years younger than me-long story) said that she only read magazines; I was floored. I could not have imagined growing up not reading...not being able to lose yourself in a book...not pictured the characters in your head and coming to know them.

I also noticed that women played down their attractiveness on purpose; no skirts, no make-up, etc. I never understood that. I wanted to look nice for me, not anyone else and I do not see how that diminishes you, unless you let it. Maybe it is because I have always been fairly straight forward and if I do not like something, people know it...not sure where that is going, but kind of thinks it ties into the whole "being comfortable with your sexuality."

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I know very few people who read a lot in my offline life. One co-worker looked at me once and asked: "Are you one of those people who always has a book in her hand?" Yep. And I'm lucky if it's just one. I'm also one of those people that if I had to choose between going to a party with friends or a party period and staying at home with a book? I'd pick the book without a second thought. LOL!

My parents though were book-a-philes. Read constantly. My Dad reads five books at a time. My grandmother (maternal) read Gone with the Wind in 12 hours. And read a book a day. My grandfather (paternal) did the same thing. And my niece lives for books. Also, half of my family are frustrated writers, the other half engineers. You are either an engineer in my family or an artist/frustrated writer. It's hilarious and its on both sides. I work with engineers daily. But not as one. What I do is best described as legal professional.

But...most of the people I've met in life, don't read that much. I remember in law school - only two or three people that I knew read.
And at work? The majority of my co-workers just read whatever is on the NY Times Best-seller list, they've read Twilight, Harry Potter,
James Patterson, etc...

As for attractiveness? I don't wear skirts - find them incredibly uncomfortable. And dresses even more uncomfortable - might be because I'm high wasted with a flat butt or I don't like my thighs sticking to each other, or I've always despised hose and stockings?

I wore skirts/hose/dresses and heels because I felt I had to up until 9/11. After 9/11? I only wore them for job interviews or if it was absolutely necessary. Same way about shoes. Used to wear heels, now I wear black sneakers. I put on base and eyeliner, and that's it. Lipstick dries my lips. Eyeshadow hurts my eyes. Mascara ditto and gets all over the place. I've always put physical comfort above "attractiveness". And do what is necessary to fit in and not stand out. Being pretty or attracting a guy's notice was always less important to me than being comfortable and not having my eyes tear up.
I think - I thought - if the guys can be comfortable, if they don't have to wear makeup, and heels, and hurt - why should I? I'm not a peacock, I'm a woman. But it's also my body..what it requires. I'm allergic to perfume, only can handle lavender and very subtle scents.
I go through the perfume areas of a department store? And I get really bad sinus headaches. Male or female perfume - both are problems.

That doesn't mean I don't dress well though. Stylish. I wear great pants suits and biz casual. Jewelry? Earrings. Can't stand anything on my fingers or wrists. Or neck. Gets in my way and hard to get off.

Admittedly emphasizing the bust has always made me uncomfortable, but I am also low and big busted and high waisted - the last thing you want to do is emphasize it. Instead I emphasize the long legs. I wore short skirts in my 20s and 30s, and long pants now. I do emphasize my long legs and long arms. Take attention away from the trunk. (6 foot,
85% of it is leg). ;-)

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I don't plan to read the EW article, but I hope they give lots of credit to Maisie Williams (Arya). Best I can tell, this is her first-ever role and IMO she's absolutely owning it. She IS Arya.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Haven't read it yet, but so far all the pics are of Tyrion, Jamie, Cersie, Dany, and Jon Snow.

I agree though - Maisie Williams owns Ayra. She is that character. Her performance and Dinklage's as Tyrion blew me away. (Hence the fact that I have not one but Ayra icons). Actually this show is perfectly cast...I can't think of any of the casting choices that I'd change.

Her performance as Ayra was actually why I told you to get the DVD's.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

You were certainly right about that. I also agree on Dinklage. That has to be the best role ever in Hollywood for a little person, and he's terrific.