![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I know it is silly, embarassingly so, actually, but am a little nervous about attending this Common Threads dinner thing tomorrow at my church. (I envy extroverts - life must be so easy, when you don't feel any anxiety doing stuff like this.) It's the tenth anniversary of an inter-faith - Muslim/Unitarian/Christian community dinner that the church I've joined has been holding since 9/11 - with the goal to bring people together. What I'm a little nervous about - is they need someone to attend and write an inspiring article/summary of the event to send to a newspaper. I decided to volunteer and I'm not entirely sure what I've gotten myself into. While I'm not a bad writer....
2. Today, on a random tv show which I'm not telling you the name of so don't ask, a character delivered this amazingly apropos monologue:
"My grandmother had a saying, Comparison is the killer of joy. And if you think about it- she was right. The minute you put yourself or what you have up against someone else, you'll feel inadequate or your ego gets so blown out of proportion - especially when you compare yourself to other people's relationships because there's always going to be another couple out there who is better off or worse off than you are and it's a false impression because no on really knows what works and doesn't work in that relationship except for the people who are in it."
(In the tv show the character's girlfriend was comparing their relationship to her parents epic romance and trying to live up to it, and he was telling her that it was impossible. Let that romance be theirs, this is ours. But I liked the quote because it is that rare speech that works beautifully out of context...and is universal. And well, it was what I need to hear. The problem with life is I'm reading or listening to other people's stories...and it hard not to compare them to my own. When by doing so, I'm doing both of us an egregious injustice. )
3. Speaking of relationships (and this may seem hypocritical in relation to the above, hopefully not - since it is really in regards to how relationships, specifically romantic ones are conveyed in a fictional setting) ...watching the Vampire Diaries has made me astutely aware of the fact that I've grown weary of the "love at first sight/endless love" trope, which while often confused with "Star-crossed" lovers, is not necessarily that. It appears in a lot of young adult romance novels - starting with Judy Blume's Forever (which I couldn't make it through) and ending with Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series. Or made quite popular in 1980s with the Brook Shields clunker - "Endless Love" and the 1990s Leo DiCaprio overhyped hit "Titantic". I liked it well enough in my 20s, now I find myself rolling my eyes. It just doesn't work for me anymore. I can see through the charade. I couldn't at 28. I can now. Odd how experience changes our outlook. Now, I look at a romance and I think, if you don't know the girl's friends, her family (particularly if she is close to them and lives with or near them), her hopes, her dreams, her fears, her mistakes and can't talk to her about things other than love ...then how is this love? Also if you are putting each other on pedestals, this love you have, is not going to last. Everyone argues. A little banter is good for the soul. I've seen healthy romantic relationships done well on tv - examples include Grey's Anatomy, The Good Wife, Brothers & Sisters, The West Wing, Parenthood, and As Time Goes By, not to mention Farscape. But for some reason or other, with the possible exception of Being Human, teen vampire shows can't handle it without either making my eyes roll at the syrupy dialogue or my inability to buy that these two people can love anyone. Is it the actors? Or just how it is written? I know Stefan and Elena talk about how to solve their dilemma (Caroline's a vamp) or (he's a vamp) but outside of that? Shrugs. Or maybe just the fact that the moment someone says the line "I have to know her" or "I saw you and I wanted to protect your heart, and hold it in my hands" or "when I kiss you, I want to die" or "I will 'always' love you..." I throw up in my mouth a little. (I almost didn't watch Vampire Diaries, because I had to get past Elena and Stefan, last night I realized - when their lives where once again potentially in danger (we should be so lucky), that I'd actually enjoy the show more if they weren't on it. I actually used to fast-forward through all their scenes.
There's a reason for this attitude, I suspect. I've witnessed true and lasting love. My parents and my brother and his high-school sweetheart, likewise I've witnessed relationships that have burned up, burned out, and dissolved in pain and tears. My parents on their wedding anniversary aren't interested in parties or celebrations, they celebrate it calmly, together, alone, and ask each other if they want to keep going. A sort of renewal of their commitment to share their life together. Their courtship consisted of political and intellectual debates at a bar, they always meant to get to the movie, but lost track of time debating the issues of the time. They were friends first, lovers second.
That's the problem with the Endless Love trope - the endless lovers are never friends. They are lovers first...and friends ....maybe if they are lucky. They see no one but each other. And they put each other up on this high pedestal. They are the best, the most heroic, the paragones of virtue. It's so idealized. It is romantic love - the type of love in sonnets and the poems of Shelley, Keats, Yeats, and Byron...
The love that lasts - from what I've witnessed is the love that is built on trust, friendship, and the ability to share who you are with another person, faults intact. Trust is the key word.
Endless lovers never seem to trust one another, or they do, but really shouldn't.
What I loved about the John Crichton/Aeryn Sun relationship was it focused on trust, they earned each other's trust. What I despised about the Buffy/Angel relationship - was they did not trust one another at all, trust never existed or if it did it was an illusion built on a bed of lies, just as the Stefan/Elena relationship appears to be built upon. The man makes all the decisions for the woman, because he does not trust her enough to do the right thing, to protect herself, or even to know what she wants. And feels on some level that the mere fact she loves him is reason enough not to trust her judgment. She likewise...does not trust him, instead she goes with her heart, her hormones, blind faith in his professed love for her. He would never hurt me. In Grey's Anatomy, which I watched immediately after Vampire Diaries - there are a bunch of characters dealing with severe post traumatic stress. One of the characters, my favorite female character on tv right now - Cristina, played by the brilliant Sandra Oh, got married to Owen, their relationship has been built up slowly. She helped him through his PTD from Iraq, and had to learn to trust him, as he did her. And she did it without losing herself. She tells him at one point, you have to let me be me, I can't give up who I am for you. I already did that once and I got lost - she did with her prior boyfriend, Burke, who was written out in the second season of the series.
Burke was a perfectionist and a brilliant heart surgeon, Cristina changed herself to be what he wanted, she did not trust him and he never trusted her enough...and it ended in heartbreak.
The depiction of these relationships is real, and while romanticized at times, continues to emphasize the traits that support workable relationships. We see the characters learn to trust each other...and with trust comes love.
Vampire Diaries tries hard to do the same thing, but it's not working for me. Yes, we have Stefan's addiction and Elena helping him - but there's so much he has not told her and she doesn't really help him past it, so much as Damon did. Damon knows Stefan better. And sadly, Elena knows Damon better than she knows Stefan. Her family certainly does. Same deal with Buffy. Buffy knows Spike better than she ever knew or would ever know Angel. The fact she had to ask Faith what it is like inside Angel's head. She wanted to read his thoughts. She doesn't understand or know much about him. And Angel likewise knows little about Buffy. Spike seems to know her friends better, as Spike knows Angel better. Spike knows about Dawn and about Connor. He knows about Darla, and he knows about Riley and Parker and Wood. Spike trusts Buffy's judgement, Angel does not. Spike doesn't trust Angel's but then considering how many times Angel's destroyed the world or sent it to hell, that's probably just good common sense.
So it bugs me a little when a series pushes a romance where trust is not present. And the lovers never quite question it or each other, well they might a little, but not quite enough. Granted
a lot of people fall into this trap in real life, so it is realistic. And it is a fantasy.
I've read enough romance novels in my lifetime to know that. But in some cases...it just doesn't work for me, at least not any more. Perhaps I question too much...blind faith doesn't quite work for me.
That said last nights Vampire Diaries did do two things that I found intriguing: 1) emphasized Stefan's love for Katherine at first sight, without knowing her - which Katherine aptly compares to Elena and states..."you went after her to fall in love with me all over again" (considering the flashback is Stefan stating he fell in love with Katherine the moment he saw her, that he'd never seen an "Angel" like her before" and how Katherine states how he doesn't even know her or what she is. When he finds out, he rejects her and she has to compell him. Damon on the other hand, she only had to compell to get him to not want her, not the other way around. Damon loved her for what and who she was...he never idealized her. No wonder Elena and Katherine fall in love with Stefan - they fall in love with the ideal, the mirror of themselves in his eyes. It's very hard not to love someone who tells you constantly how beautiful and wonderful you are, how amazing you are, how perfect and kind. But my question is - is that love? Or is that well narcissism? (interesting commentary on our society. As an aside there was a bit on the new flick The Social Network in the paper this morning - where the reviewer quipped that the film does not answer the question - "why do we feel compelled to tell people about our private and personal lives and equally compelled to read other's personal and private information.") 2) That those with the werewolf curse only become werewolves after they kill a human being. Very similar to how the vampire curse is triggered in this series - you have to take the life of a human being. In short you have to become a killer before you become a full vampire or werewolf. Nice metaphor. And the Azetecs punished the creatures by making werewolves unable to control it - instead the moon does or makes them change, and making vampires unable to walk in sunlight. Katherine through witchcraft - finds a way around both curses, a dayring and a moonstone. Another nice metaphor. Man controls nature not nature controlling man, or woman as the case may be.
[**Regarding essay and #2, please keep in mind that I'm well aware this is my opinion, I'm hardly an authority on this topic, and that mileage varies greatly. Also be mindful of my blood-pressure if you choose to disagree. Sort of tired of fighting. Do that all week, because work in an adversarial environment. So, am unlikely to fight online. Pooped or tired as it were.]
3. Big Bang Theory was awesome. Never laughed so hard during a comedy...outside of maybe MASH and Sienfield, also Fraiser on a good day. This is sort of the Seinfield of the new decade.
It lacks the model pretties of the other sitcoms, and the horrific physical embarrassment/practical joke humor that makes me cringe and flip the channel. Plus very witty.
With excellent one liners. I giggle uncontrollably during this show. And Penny is really starting to grow on me. The actress looks average, like most of us. Not stick thin. Pretty but not too pretty. I feel I know or have met these people and I really can't say that for 89% of the other comedies currently on tv. (Sigh nor do I want to know them. The temptation to throw pie in their faces would just overwhelm me.)
4. Rather enjoyed TV this week. Too frigging much of it though...and now they are adding the shows: Caprica, Wallender, Sherlock, and The Mistakes of Todd Martell or something (IFC Channel - about a salesman who moves to London to sell a toxic drink and makes a series of mistakes that put the entire city of London in jeopardy - it's a half-hour comedy by the guy who did Arrested Development. Has only six episodes.) I don't need more tv shows. Two Netflix DVDs have been sitting on my tv stand for the last two weeks now. My DVR is getting filled to the brim, and I feel like every night but Sat and Wed have five tv shows to watch.
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday have gotten a tad bit crowded. Sunday is also having difficulties. Thank god for Wed and Sat! (And this in a nutshell is why I don't have HBO or bother with streaming video or download files - have enough tv shows to choose from as it is. Don't need more choices.)
Monday:
House & Chuck (may delete Chuck - since the only reason I'm watching at the moment is Linda Hamilton who plays the mom)
Gossip Girl & the Event (they pulled Lone Star - apparently I wasn't the only one bored and underwhelmed by this show, also Fox? Seriously, two episodes? The show deserves half a full season at the very least. Sigh I remember the days when tv shows got one full season. But alas, due to cable and the net, those days are long gone. In today's world - if you don't get an audience in the first two episodes you're dead, unless of course you are on one of the lesser known cable channels such as AMC, F/X, USA, Syfy, TNT, ABCFamily, Bravo, or Lifetime - then you got a shot at a full season, possibly more if the critics love you.
I watch House and Gossip Girl live, and DVR the other two. (I like my comfort shows.)
Have deleted Castle - it's okay, but I don't have the time for it, plus its one of those shows that you know you will see in reruns on some channel such as TNT 24/7. I don't know why people bother to watch Bones live or even buy DVD's - all you have to do is flip on TNT and there it is.
Or TBS. I think I saw it even pop up on Syfy. Hawaii 5-0 didn't hold my attention.
Tuesday
Glee and No Ordinary Family
Raising Hope
The Good Wife, Parenthood (and now, damn Syfy to hell in a handbasket, Caprica - which I preferred on Fridays - it works better on Fridays.)
Wednesday
Terriers and I think that is it.
There might be another show I'm trying..oh The Defenders (haven't seen it yet)
This is basically sitcom, procedural/murder mystery, reality show night - none of which are my thing. So I take a break during it and watch whatever I didn't watch the previous nights on DVR.
(Undercovers bored me, The Thin Man it's not, it's not even Mr. & Mrs. Smith - which it wants to be. Shame. I wanted to like this show.)
Thursday
Vampire Diaries & Big Bang Theory (I can't watch Community as well, so may watch in reruns. Don't know. It has hit my embarrassment cringe factor one too many times. Did love the paint-ball episode though.)
Grey's Anatomy and Nikita (this is basically my women shows kick ass night of the week. )
(I adore Grey's, which is seriously kicking butt this season. Last year and this season are the best to date...the Cristina/Meredith relationship is the best female friendship relationship I've seen on TV. Also Grey's is possibly one of the few shows that meets Diversity and Bechdel test criteria).
And Project Runway
Friday
Smallville and Supernatural and Blue Bloods (this is guy show kick butt night)
Blue Bloods - may have potential - it's a show about a family of NYC cops, one is the Commisioner, Tom Sellack, his retired cop father, Len Cariou (yes the Broadway legend, who originated roles in Little Night Music and Don Quixote), his beleaguered older Dectective Son, Donnie Walhburg, Assit. DA Daughter, Bridget Monyihan, and the younger son who just got onto the force, Wes Estes.
It's more than it looks. There's a police corruption/secret society conspiracy hiding beneath the surface. Not NYPD Blue, so much as a family cop drama.
Sunday
Desperate Housewives (although getting ridiculously close to giving this increasingly chauvinistic and sexist series the boot, there's satire and there's sexism), Brothers & Sisters, Mad Men, and damn PBS - Wallender II and Sherlock coming soon. They can't do this in the summer??
[In addition - NY1, Sunday the Morning, On Stage, and of course my guilty pleasure which I share with momster, GH - if you don't know what GH is, tough, I'm not telling you.)
5.) Still reading Storm of Swords - keep in mind the book is 1152 pages long and tiny words.
Plus I'm not reading it all the time. And it's told in a strange manner. The writer has broken it up into little five -ten page chapters, each with a different pov. The pov changes, new chapter. And we have not one, not two, not three, but twenty pov's. And each chapter ends on a cliff-hanger. So once you get embroiled in the character and can't wait to see what happens next, you are thrust into another character, half-way across the world who is doing something else entirely. Jarring is putting it mildly. But innovative. And the stories do inter-connect, although I admittedly get tempted to ignore how the writer is telling the story and go find the next chapter of the particular pov that I've gotten intrigued by. For example - I almost went and read all the Jamie chapters, but stopped myself. Five years ago after I finished Clash of Kings, I spoiled myself horribly on Storm of Swords...to the point I couldn't read it and lost interest. So now, that I've forgotten what I spoiled myself on, I am reading it as the writer intended. Enjoying it a lot more as a result. It's actually more enjoyable with a large gap between it and Clash. In Clash - I got to the point that I wanted to kick the self-righteous Catelynn and Rob Stark in the teeth, and Sansa got on my ever living nerve. Here? I rather adore all three of them and feel sympathy, as well as for everyone else. Clash and Thrones did not portray the Starks in the best of lights...also far too many battles.
Don't recommend this book for everyone. If you read every James Patterson novel or Charlain Harris book that comes out, or are into Marcel Proust or prefer the 18th century writers and contemporary literary novelists such as Muriel Spark? I'm guessing this is not going to be your cup of tea.
Granted I've read and enjoyed all the books and writers I just mentioned at one point or another, so perhaps best not to generalize, eh? The story requires the ability to keep track of 50 people, and 50 different locals. But the writing is so good, it's not that difficult to do so. The characters are vivid as are the locals. And the writer is not into one-dimensional characters, he prefers octagonal characters. All these characters do wonderful and horrible things. And he has a vast array of characters and povs, three of the povs are under the age of 15. Sansa is 14, Ayra is 12, and Bran is 8 or 10, not sure which. Then we have their mother. Their half-brother - a boy of 17 or 18. The Lannisters - who must be in their 30s. Etc. One of the best fantasy epics I've read, and I've read more than I can or care to remember. I jump genres. I've read a lot of books in my lifetime. I used to average five a week when I was younger, now I'm lucky if I read five a year.
I blame work and the internet. Plus too many tv shows.
Am tempted to write little character essays on Storm, but not sure have the time. Captivating book.
Best of the three, that I've read. Definitely.
2. Today, on a random tv show which I'm not telling you the name of so don't ask, a character delivered this amazingly apropos monologue:
"My grandmother had a saying, Comparison is the killer of joy. And if you think about it- she was right. The minute you put yourself or what you have up against someone else, you'll feel inadequate or your ego gets so blown out of proportion - especially when you compare yourself to other people's relationships because there's always going to be another couple out there who is better off or worse off than you are and it's a false impression because no on really knows what works and doesn't work in that relationship except for the people who are in it."
(In the tv show the character's girlfriend was comparing their relationship to her parents epic romance and trying to live up to it, and he was telling her that it was impossible. Let that romance be theirs, this is ours. But I liked the quote because it is that rare speech that works beautifully out of context...and is universal. And well, it was what I need to hear. The problem with life is I'm reading or listening to other people's stories...and it hard not to compare them to my own. When by doing so, I'm doing both of us an egregious injustice. )
3. Speaking of relationships (and this may seem hypocritical in relation to the above, hopefully not - since it is really in regards to how relationships, specifically romantic ones are conveyed in a fictional setting) ...watching the Vampire Diaries has made me astutely aware of the fact that I've grown weary of the "love at first sight/endless love" trope, which while often confused with "Star-crossed" lovers, is not necessarily that. It appears in a lot of young adult romance novels - starting with Judy Blume's Forever (which I couldn't make it through) and ending with Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series. Or made quite popular in 1980s with the Brook Shields clunker - "Endless Love" and the 1990s Leo DiCaprio overhyped hit "Titantic". I liked it well enough in my 20s, now I find myself rolling my eyes. It just doesn't work for me anymore. I can see through the charade. I couldn't at 28. I can now. Odd how experience changes our outlook. Now, I look at a romance and I think, if you don't know the girl's friends, her family (particularly if she is close to them and lives with or near them), her hopes, her dreams, her fears, her mistakes and can't talk to her about things other than love ...then how is this love? Also if you are putting each other on pedestals, this love you have, is not going to last. Everyone argues. A little banter is good for the soul. I've seen healthy romantic relationships done well on tv - examples include Grey's Anatomy, The Good Wife, Brothers & Sisters, The West Wing, Parenthood, and As Time Goes By, not to mention Farscape. But for some reason or other, with the possible exception of Being Human, teen vampire shows can't handle it without either making my eyes roll at the syrupy dialogue or my inability to buy that these two people can love anyone. Is it the actors? Or just how it is written? I know Stefan and Elena talk about how to solve their dilemma (Caroline's a vamp) or (he's a vamp) but outside of that? Shrugs. Or maybe just the fact that the moment someone says the line "I have to know her" or "I saw you and I wanted to protect your heart, and hold it in my hands" or "when I kiss you, I want to die" or "I will 'always' love you..." I throw up in my mouth a little. (I almost didn't watch Vampire Diaries, because I had to get past Elena and Stefan, last night I realized - when their lives where once again potentially in danger (we should be so lucky), that I'd actually enjoy the show more if they weren't on it. I actually used to fast-forward through all their scenes.
There's a reason for this attitude, I suspect. I've witnessed true and lasting love. My parents and my brother and his high-school sweetheart, likewise I've witnessed relationships that have burned up, burned out, and dissolved in pain and tears. My parents on their wedding anniversary aren't interested in parties or celebrations, they celebrate it calmly, together, alone, and ask each other if they want to keep going. A sort of renewal of their commitment to share their life together. Their courtship consisted of political and intellectual debates at a bar, they always meant to get to the movie, but lost track of time debating the issues of the time. They were friends first, lovers second.
That's the problem with the Endless Love trope - the endless lovers are never friends. They are lovers first...and friends ....maybe if they are lucky. They see no one but each other. And they put each other up on this high pedestal. They are the best, the most heroic, the paragones of virtue. It's so idealized. It is romantic love - the type of love in sonnets and the poems of Shelley, Keats, Yeats, and Byron...
The love that lasts - from what I've witnessed is the love that is built on trust, friendship, and the ability to share who you are with another person, faults intact. Trust is the key word.
Endless lovers never seem to trust one another, or they do, but really shouldn't.
What I loved about the John Crichton/Aeryn Sun relationship was it focused on trust, they earned each other's trust. What I despised about the Buffy/Angel relationship - was they did not trust one another at all, trust never existed or if it did it was an illusion built on a bed of lies, just as the Stefan/Elena relationship appears to be built upon. The man makes all the decisions for the woman, because he does not trust her enough to do the right thing, to protect herself, or even to know what she wants. And feels on some level that the mere fact she loves him is reason enough not to trust her judgment. She likewise...does not trust him, instead she goes with her heart, her hormones, blind faith in his professed love for her. He would never hurt me. In Grey's Anatomy, which I watched immediately after Vampire Diaries - there are a bunch of characters dealing with severe post traumatic stress. One of the characters, my favorite female character on tv right now - Cristina, played by the brilliant Sandra Oh, got married to Owen, their relationship has been built up slowly. She helped him through his PTD from Iraq, and had to learn to trust him, as he did her. And she did it without losing herself. She tells him at one point, you have to let me be me, I can't give up who I am for you. I already did that once and I got lost - she did with her prior boyfriend, Burke, who was written out in the second season of the series.
Burke was a perfectionist and a brilliant heart surgeon, Cristina changed herself to be what he wanted, she did not trust him and he never trusted her enough...and it ended in heartbreak.
The depiction of these relationships is real, and while romanticized at times, continues to emphasize the traits that support workable relationships. We see the characters learn to trust each other...and with trust comes love.
Vampire Diaries tries hard to do the same thing, but it's not working for me. Yes, we have Stefan's addiction and Elena helping him - but there's so much he has not told her and she doesn't really help him past it, so much as Damon did. Damon knows Stefan better. And sadly, Elena knows Damon better than she knows Stefan. Her family certainly does. Same deal with Buffy. Buffy knows Spike better than she ever knew or would ever know Angel. The fact she had to ask Faith what it is like inside Angel's head. She wanted to read his thoughts. She doesn't understand or know much about him. And Angel likewise knows little about Buffy. Spike seems to know her friends better, as Spike knows Angel better. Spike knows about Dawn and about Connor. He knows about Darla, and he knows about Riley and Parker and Wood. Spike trusts Buffy's judgement, Angel does not. Spike doesn't trust Angel's but then considering how many times Angel's destroyed the world or sent it to hell, that's probably just good common sense.
So it bugs me a little when a series pushes a romance where trust is not present. And the lovers never quite question it or each other, well they might a little, but not quite enough. Granted
a lot of people fall into this trap in real life, so it is realistic. And it is a fantasy.
I've read enough romance novels in my lifetime to know that. But in some cases...it just doesn't work for me, at least not any more. Perhaps I question too much...blind faith doesn't quite work for me.
That said last nights Vampire Diaries did do two things that I found intriguing: 1) emphasized Stefan's love for Katherine at first sight, without knowing her - which Katherine aptly compares to Elena and states..."you went after her to fall in love with me all over again" (considering the flashback is Stefan stating he fell in love with Katherine the moment he saw her, that he'd never seen an "Angel" like her before" and how Katherine states how he doesn't even know her or what she is. When he finds out, he rejects her and she has to compell him. Damon on the other hand, she only had to compell to get him to not want her, not the other way around. Damon loved her for what and who she was...he never idealized her. No wonder Elena and Katherine fall in love with Stefan - they fall in love with the ideal, the mirror of themselves in his eyes. It's very hard not to love someone who tells you constantly how beautiful and wonderful you are, how amazing you are, how perfect and kind. But my question is - is that love? Or is that well narcissism? (interesting commentary on our society. As an aside there was a bit on the new flick The Social Network in the paper this morning - where the reviewer quipped that the film does not answer the question - "why do we feel compelled to tell people about our private and personal lives and equally compelled to read other's personal and private information.") 2) That those with the werewolf curse only become werewolves after they kill a human being. Very similar to how the vampire curse is triggered in this series - you have to take the life of a human being. In short you have to become a killer before you become a full vampire or werewolf. Nice metaphor. And the Azetecs punished the creatures by making werewolves unable to control it - instead the moon does or makes them change, and making vampires unable to walk in sunlight. Katherine through witchcraft - finds a way around both curses, a dayring and a moonstone. Another nice metaphor. Man controls nature not nature controlling man, or woman as the case may be.
[**Regarding essay and #2, please keep in mind that I'm well aware this is my opinion, I'm hardly an authority on this topic, and that mileage varies greatly. Also be mindful of my blood-pressure if you choose to disagree. Sort of tired of fighting. Do that all week, because work in an adversarial environment. So, am unlikely to fight online. Pooped or tired as it were.]
3. Big Bang Theory was awesome. Never laughed so hard during a comedy...outside of maybe MASH and Sienfield, also Fraiser on a good day. This is sort of the Seinfield of the new decade.
It lacks the model pretties of the other sitcoms, and the horrific physical embarrassment/practical joke humor that makes me cringe and flip the channel. Plus very witty.
With excellent one liners. I giggle uncontrollably during this show. And Penny is really starting to grow on me. The actress looks average, like most of us. Not stick thin. Pretty but not too pretty. I feel I know or have met these people and I really can't say that for 89% of the other comedies currently on tv. (Sigh nor do I want to know them. The temptation to throw pie in their faces would just overwhelm me.)
4. Rather enjoyed TV this week. Too frigging much of it though...and now they are adding the shows: Caprica, Wallender, Sherlock, and The Mistakes of Todd Martell or something (IFC Channel - about a salesman who moves to London to sell a toxic drink and makes a series of mistakes that put the entire city of London in jeopardy - it's a half-hour comedy by the guy who did Arrested Development. Has only six episodes.) I don't need more tv shows. Two Netflix DVDs have been sitting on my tv stand for the last two weeks now. My DVR is getting filled to the brim, and I feel like every night but Sat and Wed have five tv shows to watch.
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday have gotten a tad bit crowded. Sunday is also having difficulties. Thank god for Wed and Sat! (And this in a nutshell is why I don't have HBO or bother with streaming video or download files - have enough tv shows to choose from as it is. Don't need more choices.)
Monday:
House & Chuck (may delete Chuck - since the only reason I'm watching at the moment is Linda Hamilton who plays the mom)
Gossip Girl & the Event (they pulled Lone Star - apparently I wasn't the only one bored and underwhelmed by this show, also Fox? Seriously, two episodes? The show deserves half a full season at the very least. Sigh I remember the days when tv shows got one full season. But alas, due to cable and the net, those days are long gone. In today's world - if you don't get an audience in the first two episodes you're dead, unless of course you are on one of the lesser known cable channels such as AMC, F/X, USA, Syfy, TNT, ABCFamily, Bravo, or Lifetime - then you got a shot at a full season, possibly more if the critics love you.
I watch House and Gossip Girl live, and DVR the other two. (I like my comfort shows.)
Have deleted Castle - it's okay, but I don't have the time for it, plus its one of those shows that you know you will see in reruns on some channel such as TNT 24/7. I don't know why people bother to watch Bones live or even buy DVD's - all you have to do is flip on TNT and there it is.
Or TBS. I think I saw it even pop up on Syfy. Hawaii 5-0 didn't hold my attention.
Tuesday
Glee and No Ordinary Family
Raising Hope
The Good Wife, Parenthood (and now, damn Syfy to hell in a handbasket, Caprica - which I preferred on Fridays - it works better on Fridays.)
Wednesday
Terriers and I think that is it.
There might be another show I'm trying..oh The Defenders (haven't seen it yet)
This is basically sitcom, procedural/murder mystery, reality show night - none of which are my thing. So I take a break during it and watch whatever I didn't watch the previous nights on DVR.
(Undercovers bored me, The Thin Man it's not, it's not even Mr. & Mrs. Smith - which it wants to be. Shame. I wanted to like this show.)
Thursday
Vampire Diaries & Big Bang Theory (I can't watch Community as well, so may watch in reruns. Don't know. It has hit my embarrassment cringe factor one too many times. Did love the paint-ball episode though.)
Grey's Anatomy and Nikita (this is basically my women shows kick ass night of the week. )
(I adore Grey's, which is seriously kicking butt this season. Last year and this season are the best to date...the Cristina/Meredith relationship is the best female friendship relationship I've seen on TV. Also Grey's is possibly one of the few shows that meets Diversity and Bechdel test criteria).
And Project Runway
Friday
Smallville and Supernatural and Blue Bloods (this is guy show kick butt night)
Blue Bloods - may have potential - it's a show about a family of NYC cops, one is the Commisioner, Tom Sellack, his retired cop father, Len Cariou (yes the Broadway legend, who originated roles in Little Night Music and Don Quixote), his beleaguered older Dectective Son, Donnie Walhburg, Assit. DA Daughter, Bridget Monyihan, and the younger son who just got onto the force, Wes Estes.
It's more than it looks. There's a police corruption/secret society conspiracy hiding beneath the surface. Not NYPD Blue, so much as a family cop drama.
Sunday
Desperate Housewives (although getting ridiculously close to giving this increasingly chauvinistic and sexist series the boot, there's satire and there's sexism), Brothers & Sisters, Mad Men, and damn PBS - Wallender II and Sherlock coming soon. They can't do this in the summer??
[In addition - NY1, Sunday the Morning, On Stage, and of course my guilty pleasure which I share with momster, GH - if you don't know what GH is, tough, I'm not telling you.)
5.) Still reading Storm of Swords - keep in mind the book is 1152 pages long and tiny words.
Plus I'm not reading it all the time. And it's told in a strange manner. The writer has broken it up into little five -ten page chapters, each with a different pov. The pov changes, new chapter. And we have not one, not two, not three, but twenty pov's. And each chapter ends on a cliff-hanger. So once you get embroiled in the character and can't wait to see what happens next, you are thrust into another character, half-way across the world who is doing something else entirely. Jarring is putting it mildly. But innovative. And the stories do inter-connect, although I admittedly get tempted to ignore how the writer is telling the story and go find the next chapter of the particular pov that I've gotten intrigued by. For example - I almost went and read all the Jamie chapters, but stopped myself. Five years ago after I finished Clash of Kings, I spoiled myself horribly on Storm of Swords...to the point I couldn't read it and lost interest. So now, that I've forgotten what I spoiled myself on, I am reading it as the writer intended. Enjoying it a lot more as a result. It's actually more enjoyable with a large gap between it and Clash. In Clash - I got to the point that I wanted to kick the self-righteous Catelynn and Rob Stark in the teeth, and Sansa got on my ever living nerve. Here? I rather adore all three of them and feel sympathy, as well as for everyone else. Clash and Thrones did not portray the Starks in the best of lights...also far too many battles.
Don't recommend this book for everyone. If you read every James Patterson novel or Charlain Harris book that comes out, or are into Marcel Proust or prefer the 18th century writers and contemporary literary novelists such as Muriel Spark? I'm guessing this is not going to be your cup of tea.
Granted I've read and enjoyed all the books and writers I just mentioned at one point or another, so perhaps best not to generalize, eh? The story requires the ability to keep track of 50 people, and 50 different locals. But the writing is so good, it's not that difficult to do so. The characters are vivid as are the locals. And the writer is not into one-dimensional characters, he prefers octagonal characters. All these characters do wonderful and horrible things. And he has a vast array of characters and povs, three of the povs are under the age of 15. Sansa is 14, Ayra is 12, and Bran is 8 or 10, not sure which. Then we have their mother. Their half-brother - a boy of 17 or 18. The Lannisters - who must be in their 30s. Etc. One of the best fantasy epics I've read, and I've read more than I can or care to remember. I jump genres. I've read a lot of books in my lifetime. I used to average five a week when I was younger, now I'm lucky if I read five a year.
I blame work and the internet. Plus too many tv shows.
Am tempted to write little character essays on Storm, but not sure have the time. Captivating book.
Best of the three, that I've read. Definitely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 09:03 am (UTC)It's amazing of how many details he's keeping track, all the Walders alones.