oh, let me snark the ways.

[kaigou]

Somedays it just doesn’t pay to actually USE the freaking braincells, or it does pay, as long as I’m willing to put up with the side effects of having to deal with skeptical responses from people who can’t seem to understand how much joy can be found in THINKING ABOUT STUFF. Because you know it just gives my life extra meaning to explore all the ramifications and connotations of a storyline, characterization, motivation, conflict and possible resolution only to have someone say, “why worry about it, just enjoy the story and see what happens.”

Ahem. When I enjoy a story, it’s because I am thinking (not “worrying”, just thinking) about it. When I stop thinking about a story, I stop enjoying it. If I close the book mid-chapter and I don’t spend the next hour saying, “hunh, I wonder what’ll happen, and I wonder if she’ll call him on that, or if they’ll get away from the tidal wave, or if they’ll lose the game,” then the book or movie or series may be a good one but it’s a failure for me personally -- because it’s a storyline I’ll never revisit. I’ll probably end up rewatching Seirei no Moribito and Ookiku Furikabutte and Ergo Proxy just as I’ve rewatched Buffy the Vampire Slayer (but only specific seasons), but I don’t expect to be rewatching Macross Frontier or Eureka Seven or Saiyuki or even Rurouni Kenshin. (Though the jury is still kinda out on Eureka Seven.) I mean, yes, I enjoyed Inuyasha a great deal but not once was a cliffhanger even remotely hanging for me.

Oh, how do I long for the days of ATPoBtVS, sometimes!

I shall now snark, because it’s my goddamn journal and I freaking can. Annoying* comments will be ridiculed and deleted, because I can do that too; here, “annoying” is defined as “anything seriously repeating arguments of the same ilk as I’m about to ridicule right now.” Here, have an analogy that I’m sure a lot of you will probably get more than if I restate any mecha-based analyses...

Me: Whedon seems to be using vampires as a metaphor for overgrown teenagers. So far, Whedon has shown us vampires like A, B, and C. Wonder what this means for the intentions of Big Bad A and Good Guy B?

Reply #1: Here’s a quote from Whedon, last year, talking about how in this season, he’ll be using vampires as a metaphor for overgrown teenagers!

Me: Gee, why didn’t I think of that? I could’ve just read the interview and said, “oh, well THAT settles it, I clearly don’t need to THINK because the AUTHOR has done it FOR me.”

Reply #2: You should really stop worrying about all this and just enjoy finding out what happens as it happens.

Me: I appreciate your concern for my blood pressure, but I assure you, my blood pressure is just fine, and the only time it actually spikes is when I’m struggling to find a polite response for those folks who confuse the anxiety of “worry” with the mechanism of “observer-story interaction”.

Reply #3: Why are you wasting all this time talking about vampires, it’s a show about vampires, deal with it.

Me: Yes, it was a post of a thousand words of which maybe a quarter were about vampires and the rest was about what the metaphor means in terms of characterization. Or maybe you missed that part.

Reply #4: This is really stupid. You’re so hung up on these stupid details. You’re like those annoying Anne Rice fans who argue for hours over the exact kinds of curtains Louis had or whether Lestat’s favorite coat was blue or green.

Me: I have this strange suspicion it’d go right over your head if I quip that the author is in the details.

Comments

[sans-pertinence.livejournal.com]

Analysis... is not my chocolate cake. Which does not mean that I can't appreciate the fact (or understand why) other people consider it theirs. I don't have the type of personality to enjoy in-depth dissection: I'm too impatient, too abrupt, too much of a lot of things I'd probably be a much better person if I could shake. Once in a while I enjoy reading someone else's breakdown/insights, but only if the subject is one that fascinates me. Put me in a room with another student of ancient Egypt -- most especially those steeped in the 17-20th dynasties -- and I'll waffle happily on forever and a day about minutiae that would bore the hell out of any layman with the misfortune to happen by.

So I suppose you might say specific analysis is my chocolate cake. I must admit, however, that after being in a room with a bunch of fellow Egyptological freaks arguing as to whether the animal is the god, as opposed to said god being an animal head on a human body -- and whether or not the animal/human mix perhaps means the priest/priestess representing the god(animal) -- even a fanatic reaches the point where a Sig Sauer and a lot of bullets sound very... clean.

Fiction or otherwise, the author is in the details -- details which cushion the reader and provide the necessary backdrop for them to enjoy the rest of the story without being jarred out of its landscape. And yet, for most people background is all they will ever be: the not-quite-recalled (though most certainly required) furnishings of a home they visited, thought was rather nice, then left after a few hours and promptly forgot any specifics, remembering only that they "liked it". I suspect that quite often it's only another writer who will notice the details for what they are and appreciate them thusly.

But what do I know? I don't care enough about anything to be more than vaguely amused (or occasionally vexed) by any of it. I believe nothing is serious business, whether it's fiction, history, or life. But it is fun to poke any and all of the above with a stick once in while, just to watch things wriggle.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Once in a while I enjoy reading someone else's breakdown/insights, but only if the subject is one that fascinates me.

I think this is true for everyone, but the difference is that if you aren't interested in a topic of analysis, then a mature person just says, "hey, if you need me, I'll be at the bar." There's no need to tell the person/people in happy contemplation that their time is wasted because, y'know, they're worrying too much. Or some equally stupid shit.

I think everyone has a very specific sense of analysis -- what's valuable, and what's not. I know I dislike analysis in a vacuum; I get bored stiff almost instantaneously if I'm around the pure-science trek-geeks who really do only care about whether the engine's this size or that size, or whether so-and-so wore such-and-such in season five or season eighty. I'm the one in the corner saying, "yes, but what does this mean for the story?"

Someone who spends as much time as I do, for instance analyzing the details of mecha height/weight variances -- but then doesn't go the final step to draw a bead on what this says about characterization or motivation... is someone I'll avoid in the future. I can bloody well find and extract data on my own just fine, thanks; what I seek is someone who can give me their interpretation against which I can compare my own.

I suspect that quite often it's only another writer who will notice the details for what they are and appreciate them thusly.

Or may be the first to note and discount: I think of chefs who don't really care to dissect another's work, out of some kind of discomfort over someone doing it to them. Yet there are gourmands who can burn water, but have no hesitation spending a half-hour over a single dish, savoring every bite and discussing all the flavors. (Which just ties into my belief that you don't have to cook to know the pie is burnt, anymore than that you have to Be A Writer to know the story is broke.)

[sans-pertinence.livejournal.com]

If you aren't interested in a topic of analysis, then a mature person just says, "hey, if you need me, I'll be at the bar." There's no need to tell the person/people in happy contemplation that their time is wasted because, y'know, they're worrying too much.

Do people do that so often? In my experience they usually just nod off, and then everybody else takes turns throwing wadded up pieces of paper at their gaping mouths until they wake up. *grin* But seriously, yes it is annoying, and yes one would like to strangle them. Thank god you're less likely to run into such an individual in a group of Con people who get together for the purpose of enjoying each other's company and conversation than you would on, say, an LJ comm.


Which just ties into my belief that you don't have to cook to know the pie is burnt, anymore than that you have to Be A Writer to know the story is broke.

You don't have to, no, but if you don't know that an oil crust typically dies in an oven heated to over 425°, or that baking soda and baking powder were not created equal, then all you can really say is: the cook fucked up. You don't know why, no matter how good you are at dissecting the flavors. And a reader will put the book down and not pick it up again, whilst thinking, "Not my cuppa."

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

*waves hand*

I've done it. CP does it to me. Other friends have done it. It's not something anyone (mature, at least) ever gets upset about. It's just a straightforward, honest truth that: this is your interest, and I'll come back around when you move to a topic for which I have something to contribute.

It's far less annoying to just be honest when you're not interested, than to sit there resenting -- not to mention it saves friends from feeling like they need to explain it to you (out of that common friendly-discomfort when someone's sitting there looking totally bored), especially when you know already you're not interested. Or worse, it's something you genuinely don't like, but does it really help anyone to put friends on the defensive about it? Naw.

if you don't know that an oil crust typically dies in an oven heated to over 425°, or that baking soda and baking powder were not created equal

This is true, but you can still learn the basic procedures even if you're stuck burning water. I can tell you a whole lotta trivia about chefly things (thanks to putting one through culinary school, bwah) but I'm still limited to yeast breads and the most basic of vegetable dishes.

...And sometimes, you can tell a lot just from the flavors, the visuals, the textures, a lot more than most folks give their instincts credit for.

Back to reading/writing: I think a lot of people do have the ability to dissect, at least in general terms, what's "burnt" about a story, but it's the intimidation factor of not being able to reproduce it themselves that keeps their mouths shut. I don't get that; I think once people start talking about what their impressions, they start to realize there are analyses buried in there, they just didn't stop to bring it to the surface. A good writer can listen to those, and parse out in writerly/chefly terms what it means in terms of the technicals.

Sometimes those folks just need someone to get the conversation going, is all. ;-)

[sans-pertinence.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean, do they go off to the bar (yep, done it), I meant, do they really sit there and basically tell you to shut up? *__* Because that's what saying, "Oh, stop worrying about it so much," amounts to in this case.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

They head to the bar.

Unless it's CP, in which case he heads back to his study to watch porn download another crazy-ass dorama do homework.



(Only once has someone said in my presence, "if you're going to talk about this, I'm leaving..." and then not left. To which I therefore automatically had to reply, "well, if you're going, GO.")