![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another crappy subject title - this is why Twitter does not appeal to me, you have to come up with subject headings.
Last weekend, I had drinks with an old college friend, Ames, and her husband. As we chatted the conversation eventually turned, as most do, to what we watch and read. The usual - what movies, tv shows, and books have you read lately? Ames and her hubby mentioned a fondness for Bones, while I preferred Dexter and House. They didn't much like Dexter - found it too gory and the dialogue uneven. While I had similar criticisms for Bones. Stating that while I'd seen Bones, it was not something that held my attention. Ames grinned at that point - "that's right," she said, "you were always into 'the characters'. It explains why you'd love House."
( How well Ames Knows me to make that observation )
I got to thinking about Ames comment - and it reminded me of something an old creative writing professor once stated about my own writing. What he told me has always haunted me, partly because it took me a bit by surprise and partly because it seems to be the one constant in everything I enjoy for entertainment purposes. He said: " As a writer - you appear to be interested in the ugly emotions, the one's below the surface, that we don't want to admit that we have or try to ignore. You seem to want to explore those and understand them. The difficult emotions in people. The difficult drives. And our guilt regarding them. Each of your stories does this - this one for example is exploring why the man wants his sick mother to die, feels it would be easier somehow, and feels deeply guilty about that - while at the same time he loves her and misses her."
I think that what we watch or read is in some ways directly related to how and what and why we write. Just as how and what and why we write is directly related to how and why we watch or read what we do. The whats, why's and hows affect our perception of the shows and our critiques of them.
Last night, I watched several tv shows - and one this morning. They were all different. One I'll probably forget by the end of the week, three will haunt me for a while. And one, I'm not sure will make it past thirteen episodes, even though I love it.
NUMBERS - I finished watching this morning. It's a tv show I've seen about five to ten episodes of over the three to four years that it has been on. And from what I've seen? The characters have not changed a whit. Nor has the dynamic. It's easy to follow. You don't need to know what happened last week or last year. Episodes can be run out of order yet still make sense. The show's focus is on explaining how numbers relate to solving problems. How the language of mathematics can show how and why things occur. The characters are merely there to explain this and provide a structure for the weekly action to take place. This week's story which focused on jury tampering to get an arms dealer off of a murder charge - was not interested in the character's motivations. We saw rather little of Ray Wise's juror consultant, James Marsters - international arms dealer (Damie Lake), and the victim Erica - who informed on Lake. We got brief sketchs of each character. The focus wasn't on them - it was on the numerical equations - how the FBI Agent's brother, a mathemtics professor, figured out there was jury tampering based on a probablity study computer program he'd created.
BATTLESTAR GALATICA - is the opposite of Numbers. It, like Numbers, is interested in science and mathematics, but only as setting or plot point. It does not focus on them. The primary focus of BSG is on characters. The characters drive the plot not the other way around. Also the characters are a gnarly bunch - filled to the brim with difficult emotions and flaws. BSG is interested in what it means to be human. Damien Lake characters abound on this series, but they are not painted nearly as black and white as NUMBERS painted Lake. Some are actually stars of the series - such as John Cabal, Ellen Tigh, Sol Tigh, Kara Thrace, and Torres - all characters that have done atrocious things - which in a show such as NUMBERS - they'd be arrested for, and that's it. Here we examine why - we see complexity. How they became what they are, why they are what they are, and the motivations for what they do are not as cut and dried as we think they are.
DOLLHOUSE - is a quirky show. It is all about character. The plots are only there to service the characters and themes of the series. One of the main characters is a Damian Lake type character - except far more complex. Olivia Williams plays the head of a secret agency called the Dollhouse - which procures and provides actives to fulfill the desires of clients for a hefty fee. Her motives are at this stage unclear. She's assisted by another, somewhat shady character, played by Reed Diamond. And a scientist, who manages and runs the software program which enables each active of the Dollhouse to take on a new personality for their assignment, forgetting the old one. The show reminds me a great deal of La Femme Nikita and My Own Worste Enemy in its set-up. But unlike those two series - the goal of the agency is not to help or assist a government interest, nor is it about counter-terrorism, or stealing state secrets. The goal is to provide whatever it's clients require - whether that be the dream date or a negotiator to faciliate an exchange. The organization in Dollhouse convinces its players to wipe their minds and act as a sort of empty avatar - taking on the memories and identities of whomever their employers choose to imprint upon them. An idea that relates back to Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - about how criminals are rehabilitated by having their minds and personalities wiped and a new mind or personality put in place. Like NUMBERS - the episode concludes in one hour - Echo, the lead, finishes her assignment. But the main story does not conclude. Nor can you just watch one episode and skip a few, then watch another - as you can with Bones or Numbers. This show is in that regard more like BattleStar Galatica and La Femme Nikita - you need to turn in each week or you will be lost.
I really liked the pilot and I think I'm going to enjoy the series. I keep flipping it around in my head. But I can't imagine Ames watching it with her hubby, nor Wales enjoying it. They'd flip it off in disgust five minutes. Nor can I see my parents or brother watching it. In fact, the only people I can see enjoying this series are reading this post on lj at this very moment. I remember thinking as I was watching it - "oh this is really cool, I love this, and no one else is going to. Most likely for all the reasons I adore it."
SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES - another series that is more interested in character than plot. The plot is sort of all over the place in this series. It is entirely driven by the characters. And the series itself is mostly interested in examining human morality, psychology, and why we do what we do. It like Dollhouse and BSG is also interested in identity - what makes us who we are? Our actions? Our memories? Our choices? Our environment? What defines us? And how do we define ourselves? And how does that effect how we relate to others?
( what we focus on and how it differs from others perceptions - a tale of two reviewers, the Dresden Files and Wall-E )
How we watch something, how we write it. For some it is intuitive. For others precise and exact. NUMBERS was detailed and exact, precise. Dollhouse was intuitively told and jumped about. Sarah Connor and BSG somewhere in between. Intiutive writers find their way as they go. Are more interested in characters and themes, focus more on psychology, and inter-relationships. Precise writers - who are into research, tend to focus more on plot, background, setting, and details.
The precise writer - will often research their book before they write it. They might even do an outline first or at the very least during or after.
The intuitive writer - will research as they write, if they absolutely have to. Often they avoid it - since it gets in the way of the process. They do it after the fact - fact-checking bits and pieces. And if they outline it will be brief and afterwards. They like not knowing where their story is going as they write it.
And of course there's people who fall between the two. I may be wrong about this - but precise writers don't tend to like imprecise books or tv shows, they will pick up on inaccuracies and factual errors far more so than the intuitive writer will. This gets into how we read, watch, and write things.
( the how of my writing, watching and reading )
The why, oh the why, I've sort of touched upon with the what and how. But it also eludes.
Because motivation is complicated. I'm not sure most of us know "why" we do the things we do. For example - why I opted out of going to brunch with a bunch of strangers at some Asian restaurant in the city today and decided to write this long insane post instead. I think it's because the idea of sitting in a restaurant with 20 people or even 8, listening to three conversations at once - gave me a headache. There's got to be a better way to meet new people. I liked the art tour idea better. And I wish I could do more with the meeting of people on this thing - because as forums go, this is the one I've enjoyed the most. Maybe because I can ramble on at will, then delete it all...if I so choose. Poof. And ignore those who piss me off, without being obvious about it. Also less noisy.
But is that a why?
( the whys )
Last weekend, I had drinks with an old college friend, Ames, and her husband. As we chatted the conversation eventually turned, as most do, to what we watch and read. The usual - what movies, tv shows, and books have you read lately? Ames and her hubby mentioned a fondness for Bones, while I preferred Dexter and House. They didn't much like Dexter - found it too gory and the dialogue uneven. While I had similar criticisms for Bones. Stating that while I'd seen Bones, it was not something that held my attention. Ames grinned at that point - "that's right," she said, "you were always into 'the characters'. It explains why you'd love House."
( How well Ames Knows me to make that observation )
I got to thinking about Ames comment - and it reminded me of something an old creative writing professor once stated about my own writing. What he told me has always haunted me, partly because it took me a bit by surprise and partly because it seems to be the one constant in everything I enjoy for entertainment purposes. He said: " As a writer - you appear to be interested in the ugly emotions, the one's below the surface, that we don't want to admit that we have or try to ignore. You seem to want to explore those and understand them. The difficult emotions in people. The difficult drives. And our guilt regarding them. Each of your stories does this - this one for example is exploring why the man wants his sick mother to die, feels it would be easier somehow, and feels deeply guilty about that - while at the same time he loves her and misses her."
I think that what we watch or read is in some ways directly related to how and what and why we write. Just as how and what and why we write is directly related to how and why we watch or read what we do. The whats, why's and hows affect our perception of the shows and our critiques of them.
Last night, I watched several tv shows - and one this morning. They were all different. One I'll probably forget by the end of the week, three will haunt me for a while. And one, I'm not sure will make it past thirteen episodes, even though I love it.
NUMBERS - I finished watching this morning. It's a tv show I've seen about five to ten episodes of over the three to four years that it has been on. And from what I've seen? The characters have not changed a whit. Nor has the dynamic. It's easy to follow. You don't need to know what happened last week or last year. Episodes can be run out of order yet still make sense. The show's focus is on explaining how numbers relate to solving problems. How the language of mathematics can show how and why things occur. The characters are merely there to explain this and provide a structure for the weekly action to take place. This week's story which focused on jury tampering to get an arms dealer off of a murder charge - was not interested in the character's motivations. We saw rather little of Ray Wise's juror consultant, James Marsters - international arms dealer (Damie Lake), and the victim Erica - who informed on Lake. We got brief sketchs of each character. The focus wasn't on them - it was on the numerical equations - how the FBI Agent's brother, a mathemtics professor, figured out there was jury tampering based on a probablity study computer program he'd created.
BATTLESTAR GALATICA - is the opposite of Numbers. It, like Numbers, is interested in science and mathematics, but only as setting or plot point. It does not focus on them. The primary focus of BSG is on characters. The characters drive the plot not the other way around. Also the characters are a gnarly bunch - filled to the brim with difficult emotions and flaws. BSG is interested in what it means to be human. Damien Lake characters abound on this series, but they are not painted nearly as black and white as NUMBERS painted Lake. Some are actually stars of the series - such as John Cabal, Ellen Tigh, Sol Tigh, Kara Thrace, and Torres - all characters that have done atrocious things - which in a show such as NUMBERS - they'd be arrested for, and that's it. Here we examine why - we see complexity. How they became what they are, why they are what they are, and the motivations for what they do are not as cut and dried as we think they are.
DOLLHOUSE - is a quirky show. It is all about character. The plots are only there to service the characters and themes of the series. One of the main characters is a Damian Lake type character - except far more complex. Olivia Williams plays the head of a secret agency called the Dollhouse - which procures and provides actives to fulfill the desires of clients for a hefty fee. Her motives are at this stage unclear. She's assisted by another, somewhat shady character, played by Reed Diamond. And a scientist, who manages and runs the software program which enables each active of the Dollhouse to take on a new personality for their assignment, forgetting the old one. The show reminds me a great deal of La Femme Nikita and My Own Worste Enemy in its set-up. But unlike those two series - the goal of the agency is not to help or assist a government interest, nor is it about counter-terrorism, or stealing state secrets. The goal is to provide whatever it's clients require - whether that be the dream date or a negotiator to faciliate an exchange. The organization in Dollhouse convinces its players to wipe their minds and act as a sort of empty avatar - taking on the memories and identities of whomever their employers choose to imprint upon them. An idea that relates back to Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - about how criminals are rehabilitated by having their minds and personalities wiped and a new mind or personality put in place. Like NUMBERS - the episode concludes in one hour - Echo, the lead, finishes her assignment. But the main story does not conclude. Nor can you just watch one episode and skip a few, then watch another - as you can with Bones or Numbers. This show is in that regard more like BattleStar Galatica and La Femme Nikita - you need to turn in each week or you will be lost.
I really liked the pilot and I think I'm going to enjoy the series. I keep flipping it around in my head. But I can't imagine Ames watching it with her hubby, nor Wales enjoying it. They'd flip it off in disgust five minutes. Nor can I see my parents or brother watching it. In fact, the only people I can see enjoying this series are reading this post on lj at this very moment. I remember thinking as I was watching it - "oh this is really cool, I love this, and no one else is going to. Most likely for all the reasons I adore it."
SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES - another series that is more interested in character than plot. The plot is sort of all over the place in this series. It is entirely driven by the characters. And the series itself is mostly interested in examining human morality, psychology, and why we do what we do. It like Dollhouse and BSG is also interested in identity - what makes us who we are? Our actions? Our memories? Our choices? Our environment? What defines us? And how do we define ourselves? And how does that effect how we relate to others?
( what we focus on and how it differs from others perceptions - a tale of two reviewers, the Dresden Files and Wall-E )
How we watch something, how we write it. For some it is intuitive. For others precise and exact. NUMBERS was detailed and exact, precise. Dollhouse was intuitively told and jumped about. Sarah Connor and BSG somewhere in between. Intiutive writers find their way as they go. Are more interested in characters and themes, focus more on psychology, and inter-relationships. Precise writers - who are into research, tend to focus more on plot, background, setting, and details.
The precise writer - will often research their book before they write it. They might even do an outline first or at the very least during or after.
The intuitive writer - will research as they write, if they absolutely have to. Often they avoid it - since it gets in the way of the process. They do it after the fact - fact-checking bits and pieces. And if they outline it will be brief and afterwards. They like not knowing where their story is going as they write it.
And of course there's people who fall between the two. I may be wrong about this - but precise writers don't tend to like imprecise books or tv shows, they will pick up on inaccuracies and factual errors far more so than the intuitive writer will. This gets into how we read, watch, and write things.
( the how of my writing, watching and reading )
The why, oh the why, I've sort of touched upon with the what and how. But it also eludes.
Because motivation is complicated. I'm not sure most of us know "why" we do the things we do. For example - why I opted out of going to brunch with a bunch of strangers at some Asian restaurant in the city today and decided to write this long insane post instead. I think it's because the idea of sitting in a restaurant with 20 people or even 8, listening to three conversations at once - gave me a headache. There's got to be a better way to meet new people. I liked the art tour idea better. And I wish I could do more with the meeting of people on this thing - because as forums go, this is the one I've enjoyed the most. Maybe because I can ramble on at will, then delete it all...if I so choose. Poof. And ignore those who piss me off, without being obvious about it. Also less noisy.
But is that a why?
( the whys )
