![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. So, I went to the "writer's meetup" group in my area. Like 90% of these things, ten people RSVP'd with two on the waiting list, with only three people plus the organizer showing up. The organizer doesn't really count for two reasons - 1) we were at his house, so he sort of had to show up, and 2) he's the organizer - you'd hope he'd show up to his own event (although they don't always...bizarre I know, but there it is.)
It was interesting, but...sigh...I don't know if this is going to work out. Granted it's only the second meeting. Eh, best to show you -
Organizer: There hasn't been anything interesting done with vampires...outside of maybe Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire and True Blood - with vampires coming out of the closet.
Me (pondering for a minute then taking the plunge): True...although, the other innovative vampire tale was Buffy...the vampire slayer.
(Organizer and two other people at the table look at me..very oddly for the space of two minutes)
Me: That was admittedly 10 years ago.
Organizer: Actually 20 years ago...with the movie -
Me: well, I don't count the movie that was crap - it's the tv series,
Organizer: which was hardly innovative or brilliant - the idea existed in comic books, or was taken from them and it had been in comics for a very long time...
(Well, okay, don't ever mention that you are in the Buffy fandom or are a fan to this group of people...which may be hard to do, since it's sort of referenced in my novel. Although it's doubtful they'll notice it. I considered arguing, but why bother? The problem with Buffy, is basically the problem with most tv series - it's uneven. There are great episodes and horrible episodes. Even Breaking Bad and The Wire have this problem. It takes a while for the viewer to get hooked. I have to admit, I didn't get obsessed with Buffy right off the bat. I watched it intermittently in S1 and S2, it really wasn't until Spike and Dru popped up that I got somewhat intrigued, and when Angelus showed up that I got obsessed for a bit, then lost interest, then gained it again somewhere around S5. It was a weird series. And yes, it had comic booky/campy elements to it - which were bound to turn off people.)
Moving on to Shakespeare.
Me: Rafe Fiennes film Corianolous looks quite good.
Organizer: Shakespeare makes really bad movies, it's best for plays. Unless you have really good actors. (He went on to explain but lost me. Said something about how when Henry the V states the fields of France, this works in a play, but not on screen - because you just show the audience the fields of France - and film is a visual medium solely. I don't know...I've watched films that were mainly dialogue based and had little action or visuals...granted they tend to put me to sleep, but still. Also, I can think of a lot of great films made of Shakespearean plays. Actually I like the films better than some of the performances I've seen on stage. But generally, he's right. I didn't bother to argue.)
or...
H: Lost in Translation was the best film ever.
Me: Didn't like it. It's very atmospheric
Organizer: It's ...feminine. Not masculain, nothing happens.
H: Why didn't you like it - I can guess -
Me: I kept falling asleep during it -
Organizer: Like I said nothing happens...
Me: Well, stuff does happen, it just..it's a princess story and I don't tend to like princess stories.
Organizer: You wouldn't like Soffia Coppola then, she wrote it as autobiographical.
Me: No, most likely not. Don't like her films.Although it may be a mood thing...
Organizer: You along with most theatergoers..
(Well that's actually good to know.)
Although, must admit it was fun to gossip about film and theater. Learned all sorts of gossipy tid-bits. And insider stuff. The culture geek inside me was in heaven.
There's nothing I enjoy more than talking about books, tv shows, films and theater.
Organizer is a television writer/screenwriter/playwrite who used to intern for Francis Ford Coppola, and went to NYU, before moving to LA, buying a theater, and directing a slew of plays. He also worked for the New York Public Theater.
And it could be a useful group for my book. They might be able to help me figure out what to remove and what to keep - which is currently my problem. That and an inability to write creatively because I don't trust my muse right now. The internet has put distance between us. The Organizer tells me I need to stay away from discussion forums, he's probably right.
Social marketing killed the writer.
2. Enjoying Feast of Crows - it's a bit like reading an analogy of interconnected short stories. You get slices of these people's lives, and how they interconnect with each other. Also lots of stories within stories. Some horrific, and some touching. In some respects it reminds me of Stephen King's The Stand, except far better written and less grating in places. King's The Stand - had a sexist overtone to it, which admittedly was so 1980s.
I've changed my mind about Cersei.
Whose actions are beginning to make a lot more sense to me now. Maybe because I'm more detached? Or Lena Headley's performance in the tv series has somehow seeped into the novels? I don't know. But I can see that everything she's done has been for her children and to fight this inertia or feeling of powerlessness over her own life. The man she loved, her other half, her soul-mate, she can't have and is told repeatedly to want him or have him is a sin against nature. So she's doomed from the beginning. Add to this - a father who is treating her like little more than a brood mare or chess piece, which admittedly is how he treats all his children and how he in turn was treated. Within the context of the story - Cersei's action make sense. It's tempting to impose our own morality on these characters...but I often wonder if that isn't just a tad self-righteous?
I've always wondered this. I wondered it when I was working as a defense attorney...what right do I have to judge someone else's decisions and actions? I do not know what I would have done in their place. People claim they do, but they aren't thinking it through...they are thinking what they'd do if well they had their upbringing, their DNA, their parents, their privileges...etc and just well had those same things happen to them but as themselves. (Ghod, I hope that sentence made sense. Assuming anyone read it. Hard to tell, unless someone responds.) But what would you do if you were really that person? Had that person's parents? Had their body? Had their options and challenges?
The wonderful thing about stories like Feast of Crows is it puts us inside another's head. We are given the opportunity to see the world through another pair of eyes, that is assuming of course we can divorce ourselves and our own ego long enough to do it - to actually see what they see. I don't mean become them, just..observe..without judgement. Which I think is REALLY hard to do. Some people can't do it at all. I couldn't last November, in 2011. Which is why I stopped reading the book for a bit and read other books instead. Now, a year later, I'm in the right head-space to do it. At any rate, I find myself less emotionally attached to certain threads, more impartial, and as a result less judgmental and more able to appreciate all the individual threads and see how they tie together and what the author is doing.
Seeing a story through an emotional lense is rewarding, true, but it can also be crippling. You lose half the story. Equally true, that you lose half if you only see it through a logical detached lense. The trick is both. I think I have both now. I feel for Cersei, Sam, Cat of Nine Tales, Jamie, Victorian...and I see the irony of their actions, because I know more than they do. I see the tapestery that they are mere threads in.
I see where their actions lead. I know for example that Cersei does care for Jamie and what she wants from him and why she's so frustrated with him and why she's done certain things - things that make no sense to Jamie, who has lost all faith in her and believes she never loved him at all and only used him for her own needs. And I know how devoted Jamie was to Cersei and why he has abandoned her. But they don't know these things.
Same with Cat of Nine Tales....I know what lies behind her dreams.
I also can see where George RR Martin is heading now...where each character is going.
The connections. And how each action results in a reaction...or chain of actions. It's actually fairly well plotted all things considered. Far better in some respects than some others I've read, again King's novels come to mind, more so than Tolkien's. I see more similarities with Stephen King than Tolkien, stylistically speaking. And a few parallel's with Frank Herbet, who was equally mystical, although Martin's mysticism is a bit more grounded and far more satirical.
No, these books are meant to be savored, I think. Not sped through. Like a fine meal. Eat too fast...and you miss things, but they are also books you need to read in the right frame of mind. Or at least I do. Everyone is different after all. We don't live in a "one size fits all" world.
At any rate, I'm loving how each chapter ends with an epithany or reveal - which the reader realizes, but the character does not, because the character is too close to it, to see it.
Brienne...tells the Elder that she can't go home. The only thing she can give her family, herself, the only thing she has left is...her vows to Jamie and Catelynn...and her duty to follow through on them, no matter how impossible they may seem or futile. Even if she dies in the attempt.
Jamie...finds out from his Aunt that it's his brother, Tyrion, who was ironically Tywin's true son. She'd made the mistake of telling Tywin this and he didn't speak to her, too tied up in his ego, too foolish...to see what she saw - that power is not always physical.
The wit, the brain, the sharp clarity, and the ruthlessness...are all in Tyrion. And she fears him...because if he is like Tywin, they are doomed. And Tywin's twisted rotting smile has an eerie and ironic meaning. And I realized reading that passage what Martin was doing...Jamie and Tyrion are going in opposite directions in an odd way, Jamie towards redemption and Tyrion towards doom. Or perhaps not. It's a chilling and haunting statement she makes...
Jamie: He had a son. (in regards to Tywin)
Genna: Yes, I know, that's what scares me. (and then she tells Jamie - that she loves him, he reminds her of the best in all her other brothers, Tyg's fighting, Gerion's smile, and
Kevan's loyalty, but Tyrion is Tywin's son.)
She's right. If you think on it. And it makes sense Tyrion killed Tywin. To become him.
He may well be headed to be Dany's Hand, as Tywin was once upon a time Aegon's.
George RR Martin has managed to charm me with his blog, his interviews, and his writing.
Oh dear, am I in danger of becoming fannish? I hope not, he writes very slow. And has the annoying habit of doing other things that are unrelated to Game of Thrones. His fans often want to tie him to a chair and make him finish his Song of Ice and Fire, before he commits to anything else. It's hard thing to be a fan of a story that has yet to be finished and is only half-way through in the telling. Much easier to be one of a story that has been completed and already committed to paper and long published.
It was interesting, but...sigh...I don't know if this is going to work out. Granted it's only the second meeting. Eh, best to show you -
Organizer: There hasn't been anything interesting done with vampires...outside of maybe Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire and True Blood - with vampires coming out of the closet.
Me (pondering for a minute then taking the plunge): True...although, the other innovative vampire tale was Buffy...the vampire slayer.
(Organizer and two other people at the table look at me..very oddly for the space of two minutes)
Me: That was admittedly 10 years ago.
Organizer: Actually 20 years ago...with the movie -
Me: well, I don't count the movie that was crap - it's the tv series,
Organizer: which was hardly innovative or brilliant - the idea existed in comic books, or was taken from them and it had been in comics for a very long time...
(Well, okay, don't ever mention that you are in the Buffy fandom or are a fan to this group of people...which may be hard to do, since it's sort of referenced in my novel. Although it's doubtful they'll notice it. I considered arguing, but why bother? The problem with Buffy, is basically the problem with most tv series - it's uneven. There are great episodes and horrible episodes. Even Breaking Bad and The Wire have this problem. It takes a while for the viewer to get hooked. I have to admit, I didn't get obsessed with Buffy right off the bat. I watched it intermittently in S1 and S2, it really wasn't until Spike and Dru popped up that I got somewhat intrigued, and when Angelus showed up that I got obsessed for a bit, then lost interest, then gained it again somewhere around S5. It was a weird series. And yes, it had comic booky/campy elements to it - which were bound to turn off people.)
Moving on to Shakespeare.
Me: Rafe Fiennes film Corianolous looks quite good.
Organizer: Shakespeare makes really bad movies, it's best for plays. Unless you have really good actors. (He went on to explain but lost me. Said something about how when Henry the V states the fields of France, this works in a play, but not on screen - because you just show the audience the fields of France - and film is a visual medium solely. I don't know...I've watched films that were mainly dialogue based and had little action or visuals...granted they tend to put me to sleep, but still. Also, I can think of a lot of great films made of Shakespearean plays. Actually I like the films better than some of the performances I've seen on stage. But generally, he's right. I didn't bother to argue.)
or...
H: Lost in Translation was the best film ever.
Me: Didn't like it. It's very atmospheric
Organizer: It's ...feminine. Not masculain, nothing happens.
H: Why didn't you like it - I can guess -
Me: I kept falling asleep during it -
Organizer: Like I said nothing happens...
Me: Well, stuff does happen, it just..it's a princess story and I don't tend to like princess stories.
Organizer: You wouldn't like Soffia Coppola then, she wrote it as autobiographical.
Me: No, most likely not. Don't like her films.Although it may be a mood thing...
Organizer: You along with most theatergoers..
(Well that's actually good to know.)
Although, must admit it was fun to gossip about film and theater. Learned all sorts of gossipy tid-bits. And insider stuff. The culture geek inside me was in heaven.
There's nothing I enjoy more than talking about books, tv shows, films and theater.
Organizer is a television writer/screenwriter/playwrite who used to intern for Francis Ford Coppola, and went to NYU, before moving to LA, buying a theater, and directing a slew of plays. He also worked for the New York Public Theater.
And it could be a useful group for my book. They might be able to help me figure out what to remove and what to keep - which is currently my problem. That and an inability to write creatively because I don't trust my muse right now. The internet has put distance between us. The Organizer tells me I need to stay away from discussion forums, he's probably right.
Social marketing killed the writer.
2. Enjoying Feast of Crows - it's a bit like reading an analogy of interconnected short stories. You get slices of these people's lives, and how they interconnect with each other. Also lots of stories within stories. Some horrific, and some touching. In some respects it reminds me of Stephen King's The Stand, except far better written and less grating in places. King's The Stand - had a sexist overtone to it, which admittedly was so 1980s.
I've changed my mind about Cersei.
Whose actions are beginning to make a lot more sense to me now. Maybe because I'm more detached? Or Lena Headley's performance in the tv series has somehow seeped into the novels? I don't know. But I can see that everything she's done has been for her children and to fight this inertia or feeling of powerlessness over her own life. The man she loved, her other half, her soul-mate, she can't have and is told repeatedly to want him or have him is a sin against nature. So she's doomed from the beginning. Add to this - a father who is treating her like little more than a brood mare or chess piece, which admittedly is how he treats all his children and how he in turn was treated. Within the context of the story - Cersei's action make sense. It's tempting to impose our own morality on these characters...but I often wonder if that isn't just a tad self-righteous?
I've always wondered this. I wondered it when I was working as a defense attorney...what right do I have to judge someone else's decisions and actions? I do not know what I would have done in their place. People claim they do, but they aren't thinking it through...they are thinking what they'd do if well they had their upbringing, their DNA, their parents, their privileges...etc and just well had those same things happen to them but as themselves. (Ghod, I hope that sentence made sense. Assuming anyone read it. Hard to tell, unless someone responds.) But what would you do if you were really that person? Had that person's parents? Had their body? Had their options and challenges?
The wonderful thing about stories like Feast of Crows is it puts us inside another's head. We are given the opportunity to see the world through another pair of eyes, that is assuming of course we can divorce ourselves and our own ego long enough to do it - to actually see what they see. I don't mean become them, just..observe..without judgement. Which I think is REALLY hard to do. Some people can't do it at all. I couldn't last November, in 2011. Which is why I stopped reading the book for a bit and read other books instead. Now, a year later, I'm in the right head-space to do it. At any rate, I find myself less emotionally attached to certain threads, more impartial, and as a result less judgmental and more able to appreciate all the individual threads and see how they tie together and what the author is doing.
Seeing a story through an emotional lense is rewarding, true, but it can also be crippling. You lose half the story. Equally true, that you lose half if you only see it through a logical detached lense. The trick is both. I think I have both now. I feel for Cersei, Sam, Cat of Nine Tales, Jamie, Victorian...and I see the irony of their actions, because I know more than they do. I see the tapestery that they are mere threads in.
I see where their actions lead. I know for example that Cersei does care for Jamie and what she wants from him and why she's so frustrated with him and why she's done certain things - things that make no sense to Jamie, who has lost all faith in her and believes she never loved him at all and only used him for her own needs. And I know how devoted Jamie was to Cersei and why he has abandoned her. But they don't know these things.
Same with Cat of Nine Tales....I know what lies behind her dreams.
I also can see where George RR Martin is heading now...where each character is going.
The connections. And how each action results in a reaction...or chain of actions. It's actually fairly well plotted all things considered. Far better in some respects than some others I've read, again King's novels come to mind, more so than Tolkien's. I see more similarities with Stephen King than Tolkien, stylistically speaking. And a few parallel's with Frank Herbet, who was equally mystical, although Martin's mysticism is a bit more grounded and far more satirical.
No, these books are meant to be savored, I think. Not sped through. Like a fine meal. Eat too fast...and you miss things, but they are also books you need to read in the right frame of mind. Or at least I do. Everyone is different after all. We don't live in a "one size fits all" world.
At any rate, I'm loving how each chapter ends with an epithany or reveal - which the reader realizes, but the character does not, because the character is too close to it, to see it.
Brienne...tells the Elder that she can't go home. The only thing she can give her family, herself, the only thing she has left is...her vows to Jamie and Catelynn...and her duty to follow through on them, no matter how impossible they may seem or futile. Even if she dies in the attempt.
Jamie...finds out from his Aunt that it's his brother, Tyrion, who was ironically Tywin's true son. She'd made the mistake of telling Tywin this and he didn't speak to her, too tied up in his ego, too foolish...to see what she saw - that power is not always physical.
The wit, the brain, the sharp clarity, and the ruthlessness...are all in Tyrion. And she fears him...because if he is like Tywin, they are doomed. And Tywin's twisted rotting smile has an eerie and ironic meaning. And I realized reading that passage what Martin was doing...Jamie and Tyrion are going in opposite directions in an odd way, Jamie towards redemption and Tyrion towards doom. Or perhaps not. It's a chilling and haunting statement she makes...
Jamie: He had a son. (in regards to Tywin)
Genna: Yes, I know, that's what scares me. (and then she tells Jamie - that she loves him, he reminds her of the best in all her other brothers, Tyg's fighting, Gerion's smile, and
Kevan's loyalty, but Tyrion is Tywin's son.)
She's right. If you think on it. And it makes sense Tyrion killed Tywin. To become him.
He may well be headed to be Dany's Hand, as Tywin was once upon a time Aegon's.
George RR Martin has managed to charm me with his blog, his interviews, and his writing.
Oh dear, am I in danger of becoming fannish? I hope not, he writes very slow. And has the annoying habit of doing other things that are unrelated to Game of Thrones. His fans often want to tie him to a chair and make him finish his Song of Ice and Fire, before he commits to anything else. It's hard thing to be a fan of a story that has yet to be finished and is only half-way through in the telling. Much easier to be one of a story that has been completed and already committed to paper and long published.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-30 02:53 am (UTC)I consider myself reasonably well-read when it comes to BtVS, but you were the first person I ever saw make that point. It's remarkable (that's a euphemism) that a notoriously un-analytical reviewer just happened to say the same thing shortly after you did.
I didn't like FofC on my first read. Got bored. It holds up better the second time through, but I still think he needs an editor. Lots of good stuff in there, but it's buried somewhat.
Eh...you are giving us far too much credit
Date: 2012-08-30 11:16 pm (UTC)I consider myself reasonably well-read when it comes to BtVS, but you were the first person I ever saw make that point.
Thank you. But...I think you are giving me way too much credit.
And you have missed a lot of kerfuffles and heated debates on the AR scene apparently. Lucky you. ;-)
It's remarkable (that's a euphemism) that a notoriously un-analytical reviewer just happened to say the same thing shortly after you did.
Not really. You are giving us both far too much credit. ;-) (Besides, I don't believe for a minute the reviewer in question came up with it on his own...)
I've since come to the realization that this specific reading, while interesting on its face, is an emotional and somewhat myopic reading - the viewer is reacting in righteous outrage to something they saw on screen. And as a result isn't able to look deeper.
If you look deeper..you'll notice a few things, but this requires analytical reasoning skills and the ability to divorce emotion. To think logically and with your head not your gut.
First, Spike didn't rape her, nor did he even intend to do it. (Remember we had this discussion at the time on the ATPO Board?) He lost control. If he'd intended to rape her - he'd have done it. There was no weapon in the room and no way she could have stopped him, if that was his intent. She was able to stop him because he wasn't aware that's what he was doing - that he was hurting her, she made him aware and he stopped. If you react emotionally to that scene, you don't see that. You don't see the terror on his face, how broken he is when he leaves. The fact that he doesn't attack her again. And you don't remember that it's really no different than all the other times he attacked her - in an attempt to bite her. In some respects Hyena!Xander's attempt was worse - because if she had not knocked Hyena!Xander out with a desk - he'd have kept trying until he did rape her. Just like - if her Mom hadn't cold-cocked Spike in School Hard - he'd have metaphorically speaking raped her. (But people don't see that - because of how they filmed each of these scenes. The filming of the AR scene is more graphic and less campy than the other scenes. Flip the filming, say AR was filmed in the more campy manner similar to Hyena!Xander or SchoolHard!Spike and you'd most likely react differently to what aired. It's a more adult take on the concept, and more painful.)
TBC...because I'm too wordy
Re: Eh...you are giving us far too much credit
Date: 2012-08-30 11:17 pm (UTC)The AR scene is about breakage of trust. In that scene, Buffy explains to Spike that she can't love him because she can't trust him. Note, he doesn't try to convince her that she can trust him, he knows why she can't and doesn't disagree, what he tries to do is convince her that trust isn't important - it's what they feel that counts. Which is a reflection of Buffy and Angel - who did not work, because she could never trust him. And he clearly did not trust her. Same deal with Buffy and Riley, who did not work due to trust issues. Buffy? Gets it. But Spike, the love sick arrested adolescent does not. His actions prove it, she is able to use his attack as an example of why she can't trust him. It's ironic, because his intent was to show her that the physical chemistry between them, the rough sex, the sex itself takes precedence,if he could just make her understand, but she demonstrates that can't work like that, he can't make her be with him or understand.
A lot of reviewers don't see that. What they see is how they filmed it. They get caught up in the emotion.
The art direction, acting and filming fools these viewers. A critical and analytical viewer can see the rest. They can also see how it relates to Buffy and her journey. They can see the parallels between Spike getting a soul and Buffy crawling out of her grave. But someone who is reacting to the text emotionally or myopically - doesn't see those things, and as a result misses 90% of the story. And while they can be interesting to read from an emotional perspective, they really aren't providing anything new to the discussion.
My difficulty with pure emotional reviews, my own and others, is you lose the meaning of the text. And what the writer is attempting to communicate. It also becomes impossible to discuss the story - because you spend all your time tip-toeing around the emotional minefield the reviewer has set up. Only people who agree with the reviewer's emotional mind-set can discuss it. Everyone else...will get attacked and booted. Meanwhile the reviewer, in his or her self-righteous indignation looks like the wronged and righteous party.
But only their pov is seen.
For a really good and fairly innovative as well as recent analysis of S7 by someone who appreciated the Season, go here:
http://beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com/186180.html
You're probably giving yourself too little credit
Date: 2012-08-31 02:31 am (UTC)Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit
Date: 2012-08-31 10:06 pm (UTC)Doesn't matter.
KDS made the point long before either of us. And I know from reading a past post from MW that someone else on his blog made that point, and made it more than once - so neither of us got there on our own. I picked up on it from KDS, actually. He also made it about Dollhouse and Firefly and the comics. MW picked up on it from his fanboys and girls. We both had to be hammered over the head with it though...it's not something one necessarily wants to see. Because makes it hard to like the writer afterwards.
That said? After reading beer-good-foamy's essay, I've changed my mind regarding it. I think I understand what Whedon was doing now. Whedon was doing a sort of meta-fiction (much like he does in Cabin in the Woods) about the female protagonist caught inside the male narrative structure and how she works to subvert it. The male narrator will focus on the rapist's redemption story...he wants to redeem himself or punish himself - get staked. But Buffy, Echo, and River all question it and work to subvert that. So on its face - it looks like that's what the story is, but dig deeper, look at the structure, and you can see the writer critiquing and subverting it through the actions of his characters. Buffy is caught inside the male horror dream of what vampires and vampire slayers are and fighting her way out.
Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit
Date: 2012-08-31 10:18 pm (UTC)Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit
Date: 2012-08-31 10:36 pm (UTC)As long as you take back the credit you gave MW, we're square. ;D.
Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit
Date: 2012-08-31 10:37 pm (UTC)Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit
Date: 2012-08-31 11:14 pm (UTC)