(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Now that my foot appears to be getting better, my back is killing me again. Had sciatia going down the leg and arm during the day. Arm's better. But leg is still stiff and aches.
Stupid body is frustrating me. Don't know what to do about it. Using Ben-Gay, heating pads, and considering getting a massage. Maybe seeing an acupuncturist. Still using a cane to walk to and from work - so that may be part of the problem?

Here's an interesting review of Scandal - http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2013/08/this-is-not-romance-novel-thoughts-on.html

While I agree with sections of it, once again it hits me that perhaps certain things should not be over-analyzed but merely enjoyed? Entertainment is meant to entertain after all. Yes, and also to a degree enrich and inform and communicate. But the main goal is to give you a break from your worries, a quick escape. So ...critiques can feel a bit pretentious.

Recommendations are different. But here's the odd thing about recommendations...what we like, someone else might not. Actually, there's a 50/50 chance they'll hate it. Not that it is bad. Just...

Example? A recent email exchange with a friend, that went, uh badly.

Me: Have you tried Scandal? You'd love it - it's about satirical take on politics, and a wild ride. Sort of the West Wing on crack.
Friend: No, not my thing - I'm avoiding political dramas. I deal with too much local politics.
Me: Yet, you have no problem with Game of Thrones.
Friend: That's fantasy totally different.
Me: But this is sort of fantasy too. It's hard to explain. There's a scene in which the chief of staff and his husband strip naked to prove neither is wearing a wire, and the chief of staff admits he rigged the election.
Friend: See - that's exactly why I'm avoiding it. The election bit. I can't watch The Office for the same reason - too similar to what work was like. Now I'm dealing with too many local politicians.

See? Entertainment choices are so based on who we are, what we are going through, and our environment - that it makes it really difficult sometimes to recommend things to folks.
Been having a horrid time with book rec's. I've only been lucky with co-worker's recs to date, mainly because they are as brain-dead and stressed out as I am. I may try "Undead and Unsure" next, although currently attempting Ellen Kushner's Privilege of the Sword.

Another example? I can't read anything with footnotes.

It jars me out of the story. Sort of like watching a movie with pop-ups telling you inside information on it. Or commercial breaks. I've tried. It's not like I haven't. But I hate footnotes - which is most likely a work-related side-effect or a side effect of dyslexia, or the fact that they are ridiculously hard to read with bifocal contact lenses... As an aside? Lawyers love footnotes, they hide things in the footnotes. Read a legal opinion, then read the footnotes, and you'll know what I'm talking about. So any book, non-fiction or otherwise which relies on footnotes? I can't read without wanting to throttle the writer half-way through.

This unfortunately sort of kicks everything Terry Pratchett has ever written out of my library by default. The man can't sneeze without putting it in a footnote. Another writer who is found of footnotes, beside Suzanne Clark, is Vladmire Nabokov - who actually did an interesting thing with them - in the book Pale Fire, the entire story takes place in the footnotes. The text is a poem. The footnotes - are the colleague/student of the poet attacking the poem and analyzing it for his own advancement. He's sniping at the poet in the footnotes. It's an excellent satire on a)academic scholarship, b) literary criticism, and c) footnotes. (See, I tried. I really did. Both are memorable for being funny and giving me a headache at the same time.)

At any rate, my point is that book, tv, and film reviews are ridiculously subjective. The Wrong Questions review actually was more informative about the Wrong Questions than about Scandal. What I found fascinating about the reviewer is that she completely missed the satire on The West Wing. I mean come on, the show has the same rapid fire dialogue. Instead the review focuses entirely on the subversion of the romantic tropes that the reviewer despises and prevents the reviewer from fully engaging with other series within those tropes.
In short - the reviewer focused on the thing about the show that distanced her from it, the romance. Ignored everything else. I see this a lot in reviews. Makes it very hard to tell if you are going to like something or not. That's why on Amazon - I read the bad and good reviews, but they drive me crazy as well. Too often the reviewer is telling me how great or bad it is - but not really explaining why - they circle around the reason. The Wrong Questions review tells me that if I have issues with romantic drama or romance tropes - Scandal may turn me off - yet, maybe not. Having watched Scandal - I honestly think that would be like telling someone not to watch Buffy because it is a romantic drama or is too focused on romance tropes and is unlikely to sustain itself.

The other issue I have with the reviewer is the assertion that the first two seasons of Grey's were the only good ones, the rest was a mess. Clearly hasn't seen the rest of the series. The latter seasons are actually better and more balanced. Rhimes now has the power to showcase the storylines she prefers.

Another reviewer that I've read lately, in the Metro, has some of the same problems, except in regards to film. He tells me what he likes and what he hates. But never provides enough info to tell me if I will. Actually, I'm at the point in which I'm thinking I'll like whatever he hates. There are reviewers that are like that. This is the reviewer that hated Much Ado About Nothing (Whedon's film) and despised The Hunger Games - seeing it as a horrible book and movie, while is praising anything Martin Scorsese and Leonardo Di Caprio do out of hand. (Personally I find Scorseses' films with Di Caprio, unwatchable overbloated pretentious messes...which put me to sleep...male romance novels similar to the Twilight genre. Scorsese before Di Caprio or Scorses's Robert Deniro phase are the great films, ignore everything after Age of Innocence and Goodfellas.)

It's why reviews entertain me. Because I learn so many things - not just about the thing being reviewed, actually often learn very little about that, but about the reviewer and taste. How individual it truly is. And fickle. And changeable. Reviewers change their minds.
I certainly do. A book or film I may have loved last year or five years ago, I may despise now. Entertainment is meant to be visceral thing, something that appeals more to the gut than the intellect. That pulls at emotion. And emotions change. It's not logical what entertains us. Nor necessarily definable or understandable. I think reviews are an attempt to understand what does or doesn't. Also a means to somehow provide clues to which bits of entertainment are worth sampling and which aren't. Because let's face it there are way too many to choose from.



Sigh. This is annoying. I can't create. OR write a dumb memo regarding how I want to try different projects from environmental ones. But I can write the above post? Maybe it's a confidence thing. I'm not afraid of making a mistake with the above post. I suppose I should be...but I'm not. Yet in regards to the other two? I am. Quite. Afraid. Actually that well may be an understatement. Rejection and criticism...too much of it...is NOT a good thing. It can make you terribly gun-shy.

Comments

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

I'd definitely try a massage. And, if you can get your physician to approve, some PT would be a good idea as well. Either the traditional kind or aqua therapy.