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: 4 Feb 2008 04:19 am (UTC)It's possible I'm also one of the few people who not only doesn't figure out the murderer ahead of time, but doesn't even try. (I get a lot of grief sometimes if I admit, "hey, maybe you had it figured out, but I never saw that coming," and everyone stares at me like I have two heads for admitting that.)
It's when I stop reading or watching that I start thinking, giving it serious thought. The first go-round of thinking is: do I want to see more? am I really on edge to find out what happens next? ... regardless of the answer, the next question is "why do I have that reaction?" -- y'know, what worked? what didn't work? where did I lose interest? what does that tell me about a good story versus a bad one? and so on.
Which means that if you and I were ever to watch a movie together, I'd probably be the person shushing you if you wanted to talk about it right then... err, when I'm not tapping you on the shoulder and asking, "what? what does he see? I don't get it."
(If I'm not tapping you on the shoulder and asking you to repeat what the character said in the first place... sometimes movies are so loud these days, in theaters, that the louder parts deaden my ears to where I can barely make out the soft parts. Sigh.)
no subject
Date: 4 Feb 2008 07:13 am (UTC)With reading its different for whatever reason. I'll let the author get away with much more. I dont take it apart to much, or dwell on it(to much). Part of it is that if I do that and I get emotional about it (which I tend to do) I dont enjoy it as much. If something really gets under my skin I actually lose sleep over it. Isnt that silly? I dont want to much of an emotional involvement because its not fun for me anymore. Thats not to say I dont love a very involved story. One thing I really love to do is read. But I dont want it to be 'not fun'. Do you find yourself getting carried away?
Another reason I dont get terribly in depth on that analytical level, is that I dont want MY stuff analyzed. Poor grammar and sad spelling aside, I know what Im capable of. Fuzzy silly drabbles seem to be my lot. A side of angst. A touch of romance. But I know I will never be capable of that deeply layered writing you see from TB for example. Or anything longer than 1500 words at a time.*is annoyed with self* And so I find much forgiveness in other authors for something that is beyond me to put into words. Not that Im incapable of those the thought process mind you, I just cant seem to get my words around what I mean to say. And then theres the fact that writing is terribly personal.I would feel too much like I'm analyzing the person behind the words. Does that make any sense whatsoever?