6 Bits Before BedTime...
Oct. 6th, 2012 12:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Being snacked on again by damn mosquito. I might as well adopt it and give it a name. Considering I can't kill it, not because I don't want to, but it eludes capture. I'm torn between the names Angel and Dexter.
2. Amusing and somewhat ironic fandom cross-over news by way of Entertainment Weekly...Danny Strong is has been hired to write the two part film Mockinjay. This is the finale of Suzanne Collins Hunger Games series. Yes, Jonathan from Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been hired to write the film version of Katniss Everdeen's arc.
3. Lovely day today. Warm. Sunny. Blue Skies. Took the day off. Have Columbus Day off too.
Decided to give myself a nice four day breather from the old workplace. Getting burned out.
Need the break. So took a walk. Bought some food. A bottle of Avanti, Pinot Noir, Wine from Spain. And chocolate.
On the WW front? Not doing a great job of tracking lately. Gotten a bit lax partly because I find WW's listing of food choices annoying, I have to keep adding crap. They have too many brand name junk foods - which I can't eat, because hello gluten intolerant. But seem to be okay weight wise. Losing is hard - due to menopause. You don't lose weight during the change in life, ladies, you gain. It's annoying. Estrogen - if you take it, which I am - actually puts weight on. Something to look forward to when you hit 45. Aunt K was quite informative on the topic. Now if the damn irregular bleeding would stop. Bloody tired of having a period every other week. Told this is normal for the first 3-6 months of hormone therapy. It goes beyond that, we have a problem. And I should quit. Eh. So, patience is most likely key. Stupid female body.
4. Wet-behind the ears blogger who is getting paid to rant about pop culture (and another media onzine reviewer who gets paid to write reviews...nit-picking on Stephen Moffat's Sherlock) are reminding me of how back in the day many a viewer considered Joss Whedon racist and misogynistic in his writing just as many a viewer today considers Moffat and JJ Abrhams to be. In short, it's all about limited perspective folks or myopic pov's. I think, we often fall into the trap of believing what offends us and how we view something is the only way to view it?
Example: I look at the paint - it is clearly white. My brother looks at it - it is clearly cream. This wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't run out of paint and could not find the same brand. Hence the two and a half hour long fight back in the early 1990s regarding which brand of white/creme paint to use to paint our parent's basement. Fan fights remind me of this argument.
Perhaps a better example: Talked to Aunt K, who really likes the new tv series Revolution. (I still think it is a weak and somewhat cheesy Hunger Games rip-off, but to each their own - and she can't watch or read Hunger Games due to the violent content. She's a school nurse that deals with abused children.) She certainly didn't see the racism or the classism. (It should be noted that my Aunt came from Working Class roots, and has worked with the underprivileged and non-white children her entire life.) I can see these things, although I don't think it's nearly as blatant as people think any more than I thought it was that blatant in Whedon's work or Moffat's or RT Davies. You have to squint a bit. People, I've learned, tend to zero in on things that bug them. Like I zeroed-in on the scientific improbablities of Revolution and Last Resort, which I thought more obvious, even my Aunt saw those but she dismissed them, because hello, television.
I doubt the racism was intentional and I don't think it really is as racist as people think, if you look at the whole picture or entire series...it's not. If you focus just on one frame or a couple of episodes it is. Example in Revolution - the bad guy is actually white guy - this is revealed in the second episode. It's not as clear-cut as you think.
Another way of explaining this is via The Hunger Games. On its face, my Aunt (who has never read it) is absolutely right The Hunger Games appears to be a violent horrible tale about children being killed for sport. But if you look at the work as a whole and actually do read it and think about it - you may see a rather clever social satire of our own society's views on violence and fame. The cult of celebrity. And how we exploit others for our own personal entertainment with little regard for their happiness or choices or welfare. Celebrities in effect become slaves to our voyeuristic and somewhat narcissitic pleasure or wanking. Perfect example is the on-again off-again romance between Kristen Stewart(Bella) and Robert Pattinson (Edward) which is being used to shamelessly promote the Twilight films.
The same thing is true of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (regarding the Hunger Games not the KS/RP romance), if you just look at the controversial episode Get it Done, outside of the context of the entire series as a whole, you may (depending on your perspective) see a somewhat offensive depiction of misogyny, chauvinism, and racism. But if you look at it within the context of the series as a whole - you may see it as a statement of female empowerment and a critique of the patriachial power-structure and "gender" power plays, depicting how race does not matter when it comes to sexism and the objectification of women, and how women can push that away. Depends on how you look at it. This is also, oddly true of Twilight series, it too can be viewed more than one way. Some people see is as a deft look at a tween female's fears of heterosexual sex and the religious and societal demands on women, particularly tween girls within certain religious sects and cultures - regarding gender roles, traditional sex, and family responsibility. Others may see it as a horrible anti-feminist fantasy about a girl who gives up all her power to the man. While still others see a Princess Fantasy about being taken care of by a troubled man that they get to save and who in return provides them with eternal love, safety and power. I've seen all analysis-es on line. I haven't read the books nor plan to - not my cup of tea. But I know without reading them that these pov's are valid.
I believe, that we each choose how to interpret our own reality, we each choose how to interpret the art presented to us. There is no one way or authoritative method of interpreting it no matter what our teachers, or authority figures tell us. And how we choose to interpret it - often says more about us, I think, than the work itself. Although it does say a great deal about a work of art if it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The more ways a work can be interpreted...the more likely it will be popular and long-lasting. If it can't be interpreted in multiple ways - it is less likely to last as long or be as popular. Look at Christopher Marlow vs. William Shakespeare for an example. Or even Jane Austen vs. Sir Ralph Richardson. And ask yourself, how many different ways can we adapt this, and you have your answer. This is why a work like Breaking Bad or The Sopranoes, as brilliant as it may be, most likely won't be remembered twenty years from now or analyzed or taught in school, but Buffy, far more flawed, or Harry Potter, will be.
The fundamental mistake, I think, is assuming that our perspective on the work of art is the only valid one. Which is unfortunately true of fandoms (which has a great deal in common with religious cults in that specific way) and why fandom can become rather cliquish at times - anyone who does NOT view this the same way I do or share my fundamental views on this topic, is banned or jumped or ostracized. It's easy to accept opinions that validate our own, we agree with, or reinforce ours - it's far harder to accept, acknowledge or read those that contradict, invalidate, or challenge or even offend our sensibilities or own views and beliefs.
Which is probably why I struggle with fandom. It's not critical enough of its own behavior. And when I get involved too emotionally within it...I find myself falling into those tricky behavior patterns as well. It...reminds me a little of religious cults. There's also an odd authoritative structure to fandom - where the original creator's word can often be seen as gospel. Whedon is God, or what Whedon states is TRUE. OR Gene Roddenberry is God. Or How DARE You criticize JK Rowling's work! Ironic, considering many fans hate religion for that very reason. When emotion is involved, logical thought leaps out the window - and fandom is a religious experience. And for some it may even replace what religion provides entirely. They attend the church of fandom (fandom conventions or cons)...and their community is fans. This is not true of all fans of course. Or all fandom convention goers.
What I keep hunting for, and this may well be impossible, is for group unity without exclusion in fandom and elsewhere. I don't know if we can do that. I don't know if I can. I don't like being kicked verbally in my lj and tend to ban people who do it. That is a brand of exclusion. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But by the same token, should we not be permitted some flexibility in protecting ourselves? Isn't there a middle ground? Where we have a safe place to post these concepts, without fear of being attacked by the same people over and over again? I don't know. It's all rather confusing.
5. Speaking of JK Rowling (I refer to her above, if you read that whole bit) - I flipped through her new book Casual Vacancy at the book store the other day. Read two reviews of it. One in Entertainment Weekly and one in NY Times. Both were not that complimentary. EW said it starts out well enough, crisp and sharp humor, but derails into preachy doom and gloom. While one of the book store clerks (at the indie book store) loved the book. I looked at it, first page, middle pages, end and noted that JK Rowling has fallen in love with the semi-colon and the coma. She likes to write these long rambling sentences with lots of commas and semi-colons. She also loves to describe things in a sardonic or wryly bizarre manner. (Methinks she's been reading a lot of Ronald Dahl, with a bit of PD Wodehouse thrown in. But unfortunately no EB White.) After glancing through it, I thought the same thing I did when I flipped through Stephanie Meyer's Twilight and Anne Rice and Stephen King's latest, what has happened to the publishing industry? Aren't there copy-editors any longer? Hello? Although...I'm guessing Ernest Hemingway most likely thought the same thing when he read James Joyce's Ulysess. So this may have always been the case? Granted Joyce is a better writer. I also thought...whoa, Rowling's really likes to use semi-colons. Every sentence had them. I had to hunt for paragraphs that didn't. The one's that didn't? Had a lot of commas. People? Don't do this. Rowling's is a name author, she can get away with it. She could write a telephone book and people would buy it.
That said, I do applaud her for continuing to blast the British political system and caste system - which she's been doing since Harry Potter. What? You didn't know that beneath all that magic and wizardry was a wry social critique of Western Culture and class system, not to mention British Politics? Granted she's no Ron Dahl, but it is there. Bit preachy in the latter novels, which may explain why people didn't like them as well.
6. Finally, this link made me laugh my head off this morning:
Mitt Romney Fired Big Bird.
Also...apparently Canada's Maple Syrup Reserve Got Stolen. Up until now, I didn't know Canada had a maple syrup reserve let alone that such a thing would be worth 30 million.
2. Amusing and somewhat ironic fandom cross-over news by way of Entertainment Weekly...Danny Strong is has been hired to write the two part film Mockinjay. This is the finale of Suzanne Collins Hunger Games series. Yes, Jonathan from Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been hired to write the film version of Katniss Everdeen's arc.
3. Lovely day today. Warm. Sunny. Blue Skies. Took the day off. Have Columbus Day off too.
Decided to give myself a nice four day breather from the old workplace. Getting burned out.
Need the break. So took a walk. Bought some food. A bottle of Avanti, Pinot Noir, Wine from Spain. And chocolate.
On the WW front? Not doing a great job of tracking lately. Gotten a bit lax partly because I find WW's listing of food choices annoying, I have to keep adding crap. They have too many brand name junk foods - which I can't eat, because hello gluten intolerant. But seem to be okay weight wise. Losing is hard - due to menopause. You don't lose weight during the change in life, ladies, you gain. It's annoying. Estrogen - if you take it, which I am - actually puts weight on. Something to look forward to when you hit 45. Aunt K was quite informative on the topic. Now if the damn irregular bleeding would stop. Bloody tired of having a period every other week. Told this is normal for the first 3-6 months of hormone therapy. It goes beyond that, we have a problem. And I should quit. Eh. So, patience is most likely key. Stupid female body.
4. Wet-behind the ears blogger who is getting paid to rant about pop culture (and another media onzine reviewer who gets paid to write reviews...nit-picking on Stephen Moffat's Sherlock) are reminding me of how back in the day many a viewer considered Joss Whedon racist and misogynistic in his writing just as many a viewer today considers Moffat and JJ Abrhams to be. In short, it's all about limited perspective folks or myopic pov's. I think, we often fall into the trap of believing what offends us and how we view something is the only way to view it?
Example: I look at the paint - it is clearly white. My brother looks at it - it is clearly cream. This wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't run out of paint and could not find the same brand. Hence the two and a half hour long fight back in the early 1990s regarding which brand of white/creme paint to use to paint our parent's basement. Fan fights remind me of this argument.
Perhaps a better example: Talked to Aunt K, who really likes the new tv series Revolution. (I still think it is a weak and somewhat cheesy Hunger Games rip-off, but to each their own - and she can't watch or read Hunger Games due to the violent content. She's a school nurse that deals with abused children.) She certainly didn't see the racism or the classism. (It should be noted that my Aunt came from Working Class roots, and has worked with the underprivileged and non-white children her entire life.) I can see these things, although I don't think it's nearly as blatant as people think any more than I thought it was that blatant in Whedon's work or Moffat's or RT Davies. You have to squint a bit. People, I've learned, tend to zero in on things that bug them. Like I zeroed-in on the scientific improbablities of Revolution and Last Resort, which I thought more obvious, even my Aunt saw those but she dismissed them, because hello, television.
I doubt the racism was intentional and I don't think it really is as racist as people think, if you look at the whole picture or entire series...it's not. If you focus just on one frame or a couple of episodes it is. Example in Revolution - the bad guy is actually white guy - this is revealed in the second episode. It's not as clear-cut as you think.
Another way of explaining this is via The Hunger Games. On its face, my Aunt (who has never read it) is absolutely right The Hunger Games appears to be a violent horrible tale about children being killed for sport. But if you look at the work as a whole and actually do read it and think about it - you may see a rather clever social satire of our own society's views on violence and fame. The cult of celebrity. And how we exploit others for our own personal entertainment with little regard for their happiness or choices or welfare. Celebrities in effect become slaves to our voyeuristic and somewhat narcissitic pleasure or wanking. Perfect example is the on-again off-again romance between Kristen Stewart(Bella) and Robert Pattinson (Edward) which is being used to shamelessly promote the Twilight films.
The same thing is true of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (regarding the Hunger Games not the KS/RP romance), if you just look at the controversial episode Get it Done, outside of the context of the entire series as a whole, you may (depending on your perspective) see a somewhat offensive depiction of misogyny, chauvinism, and racism. But if you look at it within the context of the series as a whole - you may see it as a statement of female empowerment and a critique of the patriachial power-structure and "gender" power plays, depicting how race does not matter when it comes to sexism and the objectification of women, and how women can push that away. Depends on how you look at it. This is also, oddly true of Twilight series, it too can be viewed more than one way. Some people see is as a deft look at a tween female's fears of heterosexual sex and the religious and societal demands on women, particularly tween girls within certain religious sects and cultures - regarding gender roles, traditional sex, and family responsibility. Others may see it as a horrible anti-feminist fantasy about a girl who gives up all her power to the man. While still others see a Princess Fantasy about being taken care of by a troubled man that they get to save and who in return provides them with eternal love, safety and power. I've seen all analysis-es on line. I haven't read the books nor plan to - not my cup of tea. But I know without reading them that these pov's are valid.
I believe, that we each choose how to interpret our own reality, we each choose how to interpret the art presented to us. There is no one way or authoritative method of interpreting it no matter what our teachers, or authority figures tell us. And how we choose to interpret it - often says more about us, I think, than the work itself. Although it does say a great deal about a work of art if it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The more ways a work can be interpreted...the more likely it will be popular and long-lasting. If it can't be interpreted in multiple ways - it is less likely to last as long or be as popular. Look at Christopher Marlow vs. William Shakespeare for an example. Or even Jane Austen vs. Sir Ralph Richardson. And ask yourself, how many different ways can we adapt this, and you have your answer. This is why a work like Breaking Bad or The Sopranoes, as brilliant as it may be, most likely won't be remembered twenty years from now or analyzed or taught in school, but Buffy, far more flawed, or Harry Potter, will be.
The fundamental mistake, I think, is assuming that our perspective on the work of art is the only valid one. Which is unfortunately true of fandoms (which has a great deal in common with religious cults in that specific way) and why fandom can become rather cliquish at times - anyone who does NOT view this the same way I do or share my fundamental views on this topic, is banned or jumped or ostracized. It's easy to accept opinions that validate our own, we agree with, or reinforce ours - it's far harder to accept, acknowledge or read those that contradict, invalidate, or challenge or even offend our sensibilities or own views and beliefs.
Which is probably why I struggle with fandom. It's not critical enough of its own behavior. And when I get involved too emotionally within it...I find myself falling into those tricky behavior patterns as well. It...reminds me a little of religious cults. There's also an odd authoritative structure to fandom - where the original creator's word can often be seen as gospel. Whedon is God, or what Whedon states is TRUE. OR Gene Roddenberry is God. Or How DARE You criticize JK Rowling's work! Ironic, considering many fans hate religion for that very reason. When emotion is involved, logical thought leaps out the window - and fandom is a religious experience. And for some it may even replace what religion provides entirely. They attend the church of fandom (fandom conventions or cons)...and their community is fans. This is not true of all fans of course. Or all fandom convention goers.
What I keep hunting for, and this may well be impossible, is for group unity without exclusion in fandom and elsewhere. I don't know if we can do that. I don't know if I can. I don't like being kicked verbally in my lj and tend to ban people who do it. That is a brand of exclusion. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But by the same token, should we not be permitted some flexibility in protecting ourselves? Isn't there a middle ground? Where we have a safe place to post these concepts, without fear of being attacked by the same people over and over again? I don't know. It's all rather confusing.
5. Speaking of JK Rowling (I refer to her above, if you read that whole bit) - I flipped through her new book Casual Vacancy at the book store the other day. Read two reviews of it. One in Entertainment Weekly and one in NY Times. Both were not that complimentary. EW said it starts out well enough, crisp and sharp humor, but derails into preachy doom and gloom. While one of the book store clerks (at the indie book store) loved the book. I looked at it, first page, middle pages, end and noted that JK Rowling has fallen in love with the semi-colon and the coma. She likes to write these long rambling sentences with lots of commas and semi-colons. She also loves to describe things in a sardonic or wryly bizarre manner. (Methinks she's been reading a lot of Ronald Dahl, with a bit of PD Wodehouse thrown in. But unfortunately no EB White.) After glancing through it, I thought the same thing I did when I flipped through Stephanie Meyer's Twilight and Anne Rice and Stephen King's latest, what has happened to the publishing industry? Aren't there copy-editors any longer? Hello? Although...I'm guessing Ernest Hemingway most likely thought the same thing when he read James Joyce's Ulysess. So this may have always been the case? Granted Joyce is a better writer. I also thought...whoa, Rowling's really likes to use semi-colons. Every sentence had them. I had to hunt for paragraphs that didn't. The one's that didn't? Had a lot of commas. People? Don't do this. Rowling's is a name author, she can get away with it. She could write a telephone book and people would buy it.
That said, I do applaud her for continuing to blast the British political system and caste system - which she's been doing since Harry Potter. What? You didn't know that beneath all that magic and wizardry was a wry social critique of Western Culture and class system, not to mention British Politics? Granted she's no Ron Dahl, but it is there. Bit preachy in the latter novels, which may explain why people didn't like them as well.
6. Finally, this link made me laugh my head off this morning:
Mitt Romney Fired Big Bird.
Also...apparently Canada's Maple Syrup Reserve Got Stolen. Up until now, I didn't know Canada had a maple syrup reserve let alone that such a thing would be worth 30 million.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-06 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-06 02:50 pm (UTC)