I was reading a post that referenced a recent article about "show stopper" characters (characters the author felt killed the show dead when they were onscreen for various reasons) and in the course of the discussion somebody made the mistake of asking me what I think about Betty Draper on Mad Men post-divorce. I immediately realized I had way to much that I thought to burden somebody else's entry with! So within, here are my very much tl;dr thoughts on Betty Draper and other things related in my head... )

The lesson here is: never ask me what I think about something on Mad Men!
Tags:
I was reading a post that referenced a recent article about "show stopper" characters (characters the author felt killed the show dead when they were onscreen for various reasons) and in the course of the discussion somebody made the mistake of asking me what I think about Betty Draper on Mad Men post-divorce. I immediately realized I had way to much that I thought to burden somebody else's entry with! So within, here are my very much tl;dr thoughts on Betty Draper and other things related in my head... )

The lesson here is: never ask me what I think about something on Mad Men!
Tags:
So there was a lot to be relieved about in last night's ep of SPN, but the very end really makes me question their casting again. Spoilers for Like A Virgin )
So there was a lot to be relieved about in last night's ep of SPN, but the very end really makes me question their casting again. Spoilers for Like A Virgin )
I was reading a discussion on Scans_Daily today that circled around one of my pet peeves: the importance of a "normal" life. I don't know why this bugs me--I can remember getting into a big fight about it once regarding a kids' book years ago.

Let me define normal in this context. Sometimes fandom etc. uses "normal" to describe people not in fandom, often associating the word with things that are boring and mundane. That's not what I mean here. I don't think there's anything wrong with living a "normal" life that you enjoy. I don't think that Jim and Pam on The Office have betrayed themselves or us by admitting that they are satisfied working at a small paper company while they enjoy each other and their baby probably soon to be babies.

This is not about putting down the "normal" life--it's more about the opposite, the sometimes unthinking judgment that "normal" is healthy and therefore "abnormal" is unhealthy. That always confused me. )
I was reading a discussion on Scans_Daily today that circled around one of my pet peeves: the importance of a "normal" life. I don't know why this bugs me--I can remember getting into a big fight about it once regarding a kids' book years ago.

Let me define normal in this context. Sometimes fandom etc. uses "normal" to describe people not in fandom, often associating the word with things that are boring and mundane. That's not what I mean here. I don't think there's anything wrong with living a "normal" life that you enjoy. I don't think that Jim and Pam on The Office have betrayed themselves or us by admitting that they are satisfied working at a small paper company while they enjoy each other and their baby probably soon to be babies.

This is not about putting down the "normal" life--it's more about the opposite, the sometimes unthinking judgment that "normal" is healthy and therefore "abnormal" is unhealthy. That always confused me. )
I was talking today about a thing on Pop Culture Happy Hour last week where there was this theory put forth that in order to have cool kids, you ought to not be cool parents. The idea being that cool parents produce dull kids and vice versa, since kids rebel. This is echoed in a Wired piece this week about geeks needing a wider, blander culture to react against or else you don't get creativity.

And I thought a lot of the appeal of these ideas is that it gives you a formula for creativity, a way of ensuring you can be cool, when in fact creativity and talent is often innate, unearned and unfair. Which is not to say that you either get sprinkled with the creativity dust at birth and you’re a prodigy and if you aren't you should just shut up and there's no hope for you and hard work means nothing--could not disagree with that more. I just don't think it's wholly created by your environment, doesn’t always fit in with your personality, at least not in a way that makes it easy. So I started thinking about my own tastes in things and whether I got them from my parents. )

Anyone else have relevant experiences in this area?
I was talking today about a thing on Pop Culture Happy Hour last week where there was this theory put forth that in order to have cool kids, you ought to not be cool parents. The idea being that cool parents produce dull kids and vice versa, since kids rebel. This is echoed in a Wired piece this week about geeks needing a wider, blander culture to react against or else you don't get creativity.

And I thought a lot of the appeal of these ideas is that it gives you a formula for creativity, a way of ensuring you can be cool, when in fact creativity and talent is often innate, unearned and unfair. Which is not to say that you either get sprinkled with the creativity dust at birth and you’re a prodigy and if you aren't you should just shut up and there's no hope for you and hard work means nothing--could not disagree with that more. I just don't think it's wholly created by your environment, doesn’t always fit in with your personality, at least not in a way that makes it easy. So I started thinking about my own tastes in things and whether I got them from my parents. )

Anyone else have relevant experiences in this area?
I read a post today that got me thinking about the subject...here [livejournal.com profile] jarodrossell refers to a conversation he was having about archetypes. Specifically, characters that can redefine archetypes. The context of the original conversation is regarding African American nerd characters, of whom there aren't that many. The one everyone usually points to is Urkel, and he was on TV in the 90s. [livejournal.com profile] jarodrussell points out Alec Hardison from Leverage as an example, but since Hardison is a supporting character and a member of an ensemble, he doesn't have the power to redefine an archetype like a lead. Which got me thinking about supporting characters in general and how they often outshine the lead--which should not be taken as an argument for white leads.... )
I read a post today that got me thinking about the subject...here [profile] jarodrossell refers to a conversation he was having about archetypes. Specifically, characters that can redefine archetypes. The context of the original conversation is regarding African American nerd characters, of whom there aren't that many. The one everyone usually points to is Urkel, and he was on TV in the 90s. [personal profile] jarodrussell points out Alec Hardison from Leverage as an example, but since Hardison is a supporting character and a member of an ensemble, he doesn't have the power to redefine an archetype like a lead. Which got me thinking about supporting characters in general and how they often outshine the lead--which should not be taken as an argument for white leads.... )
sistermagpie: Classic magpie (Huffy)
( Oct. 18th, 2010 03:47 pm)
I did not sleep at all last night and I'm embarrassed to admit it was actually because I was apparently annoyed by watching this show before bed. When I did fall asleep I kept waking up to bad dreams about the show! Not literally about the show, like starring Don Draper, but dreams that made me feel the same way. I don't even really know how I feel about it, so this might be incoherent as I try to sort through it.


spoilers, obviously )
Tags:
sistermagpie: Sigh. (Monet)
( Oct. 18th, 2010 03:45 pm)
I did not sleep at all last night and I'm embarrassed to admit it was actually because I was apparently annoyed by watching this show before bed. When I did fall asleep I kept waking up to bad dreams about the show! Not literally about the show, like starring Don Draper, but dreams that made me feel the same way. I don't even really know how I feel about it, so this might be incoherent as I try to sort through it.

spoilers, obviously )
Tags:
sistermagpie: Classic magpie (Default)
( Oct. 5th, 2010 10:22 pm)
I was a bit annoyed by Glee. Before clicking on the link, if you're going to click, I have total respect for religious people. I don't think it's a mark of stupidity or feeble mindedness or insanity. But this ep was a little annoying )
Tags:
sistermagpie: Classic magpie (WWSMD?)
( Oct. 5th, 2010 10:21 pm)
I was a bit annoyed by Glee. Before clicking on the link, if you're going to click, I have total respect for religious people. I don't think it's a mark of stupidity or feeble mindedness or insanity. But this ep was a little annoying )
Tags:
sistermagpie: Classic magpie (I'm still picking.)
( Oct. 3rd, 2010 02:28 pm)
Two Supernatural eps and two times I had something to say about them. This is getting scary. I thought this ep was better than the first, but the Campbells continue to be off-putting in exactly the way Ben and Lisa aren't. Apparently Sera Gamble has said might as well cut here for very mild spoiles for the tone of the season )
sistermagpie: Classic magpie (Default)
( Oct. 3rd, 2010 02:28 pm)
Two Supernatural eps and two times I had something to say about them. This is getting scary. I thought this ep was better than the first, but the Campbells continue to be off-putting in exactly the way Ben and Lisa aren't. Apparently Sera Gamble has said might as well cut here for very mild spoiles for the tone of the season )
Because I realized there was no way it was going to come across the way it was in my head instead of as something else.

ETA: I didn't realize people had actually read it and wanted to comment. It seemed a little unfair to yank it in that case. I was able to find it by going back to a previous page, so here's the text of it again. Basically, I was worried that I'd accidentally made it sound like a big attack on Sam as a person/character that would leave me defending things I didn't really believe when really it was just that I thought it was a sloppy reset. But anyway, here's the basic idea of what I had said the first time around.

Here. )
I've been having these vague thoughts lately on "realistic" drama, and how it is or isn't realistic, or how real life does or doesn't get considered realistic. And seeing a couple of comments on the last couple of episodes of Mad Men spurred me to actually write some of them down.

Basically, it just occured to me how when you think about great dialogue, it's usually dialogue that is either witty and subtle or incisive and sharp. Dialogue or drama that's sentimental, clunky, or too on the nose is fake or inept. Yet so often in real life people are all those things. More stuff in here--but no real spoilers. )
I've been having these vague thoughts lately on "realistic" drama, and how it is or isn't realistic, or how real life does or doesn't get considered realistic. And seeing a couple of comments on the last couple of episodes of Mad Men spurred me to actually write some of them down.

Basically, it just occured to me how when you think about great dialogue, it's usually dialogue that is either witty and subtle or incisive and sharp. Dialogue or drama that's sentimental, clunky, or too on the nose is fake or inept. Yet so often in real life people are all those things. More stuff in here--but no real spoilers. )
sistermagpie: Sigh. (Monet)
( Sep. 1st, 2010 11:47 am)
I saw this article about the declining interest in and importance of friendship linked on Tumblr earlier and thought it said some interesting things. Even if you don't agree with everything in it I think it brings up some really basic points about how relationships tend to get weighted now. Especially the way that romantic relationships and marriage for a lot of people are expected to take on a lot of the job that friendship used to have. More rambling in here. )
Tags:
.

Profile

sistermagpie: Classic magpie (Default)
sistermagpie

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags