oh, let me snark the ways.
1 Feb 2008 03:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouSomedays 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2008 10:15 am (UTC)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. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2008 10:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2008 10:40 am (UTC)Unless it's CP, in which case he heads back to his study to
watch porndownload another crazy-ass doramado 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.")