(no subject)
Aug. 26th, 2005 04:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rusty_haloI've barely been reading LJ. I know, I suck. Sorry.
I was channel surfing the other day and came across Logan Echolls. I haven't watched, or really even thought about, VM for a couple of weeks. So the level of my emotional reaction was surprising; it was close to the kind of affectionate happiness you get when you see an old friend after a long time apart. I've not felt that level of emotional investment in a fictional character since, oh... Spike.
I guess we'll see what happens when the new season starts. Thus far I haven't felt any need to write essays or participate in the fandom or any of that. And I've (hopefully) learned my lesson from BtVS: don't get your hopes up and never allow some TV show to influence your own personal happiness. So, emotional investment heavily checked. And I'm sure it helps immensely that I'm not a shipper, though I continue to hate the way that these shows are framed so that any character who is not important to the main character is supposed to be considered unimportant by the audience, too.
Part of what I love about "A Song of Ice and Fire" (to switch topics here a bit) is its true ensemble nature. There is no one hero around whom everything else revolves, and no one "truth" against which all opinions are judged. You can have characters on completely different sides who are each understandable and sympathetic despite their differences (and it's also nice that the series has many different factions, not a "one side vs the other side" binary).
Although, I've been reading the alt.fan.grrm newsgroup, and it's only reinforcing my refusal to become heavily involved in a fandom again. It's really like Spike fandom in the "Crush" days; it's not just that your opinion is Wrong, it's that you are a Bad Person for even daring to have that opinion. I know it's just fiction, but I don't enjoy seeing this cruel and judgmental and unforgiving side of humanity, even when applied to an imaginary conflict.
And it really drives me crazy how many people reject the nuances of the series and try to turn it into a "black vs white," "good vs evil," traditional fantasy narrative. Martin explicitly subverts that cliche, so why, if you're a fan, would you try to restore it? (It's like those BtVS fans who love their feminist hero so much that they want to see her... pregnant and married and taking care of the kids while Daddy Spike (or Angel) brings home the money.)
For example, these people who insist that the Starks are the True Good Guys, and the Lannisters are the True Bad Guys. And that no matter how much Martin muddies the waters with moral ambiguity, ultimately the binary holds.
This kind of judgmental attitude isn't just simplistic, it destroys one of the most enjoyable qualities of the series, which is its ability to really explore moral ambiguity (not just play at it for thrills, a la BtVS), and to show that most people can't be easily categorized into "good" and "evil," that one person's evil monster is another person's great hero. Martin lets us see all these factions, and all these people, and all their different points of view--and there is no easy answer about who's "right" and "wrong." (Aside from a few extreme examples like Gregor Clegane.)
The author lets the readers draw our own conclusions, and he doesn't let us off the hook easily. You can't just say "Well, Ned Stark is an honorable fellow, and he hates the Lannisters, so the Lannisters are bad. And he supported the rebellion, so the rebellion must've been good. And his good buddy Robert says that Rheagar was a monster, so Rheagar's death must've been justified. And he's got a loving and dutiful wife, so her family must be decent well-meaning people." In fact Martin specifically introduces these fallacies at the beginning of the series so that he can knock them down. Like with the Lannisters: first you find yourself liking and respecting Tyrion's almost despite yourself, then learn later that Jaime and Tommen aren't so bad, while you increasingly question Arya's dark side and Ned and Robb's failures. Or take the case of Rheagar; all we hear about Rheagar in the first book is about how he's this horrible kidnapping raping monster. It's only much later that we realize that this is Robert's point of view, that Robert (like everyone else) is deeply flawed, and that Rheagar may have actually been a pretty cool guy.
I don't know. Part of the reason I haven't been watching TV much lately is that I'm so sick of the black and white, good vs evil binary divide that damn near every popular narrative clings to. It's boring. (Incidentally, this is why one of the few shows I'm trying to keep up with is "Rescue Me," because it too explores its flawed characters in interesting ways without relying on simple moral judgments or taking the easy way out.)
And I think this is why characters like Jaime, or Spike, (or Logan for some reason that I can't really figure out because he's not even that "bad") inspire such vehement hatred in their detractors. They threaten the binary, the simple good vs evil framework, that makes it easy to make moral judgments without having to actually think. They threaten the framework that lets you gloss over the difficult questions and affirm your own correctness without actually examining anyone else's side.
Like, for example, it drives me crazy seeing these people rip Jaime to shreds for killing Aerys. "Jaime swore an oath to protect King Aerys, therefore the 'right' thing to do is to protect the king no matter what." It doesn't require thought; just obedience. To these people it doesn't matter at all that Jaime killed Aerys in order to protect the entire city, thousands of people, from being horribly incinerated. Jaime had to make a choice between what was officially decreed to be "right," protecting the king at all costs, and what he personally believed to be right, which was to protect the thousands of innocent people of the city. And he chose to protect the innocent people and kill the insane king, at great cost to his own personal reputation, no less. It just boggles my mind that people think he should've stood aside and let the city burn, because it was "right."
And part of it is this weird conflation of "honorable" with "right" that the Starks (and their fans), in particular, seem to suffer from. The series opens with Ned coldly killing this poor tormented crazy guy who's just escaped from a bunch of ice zombies, and we're supposed to think this is "right"? Ned and Rob both bring about their own downfalls (and that of many of their followers) doing what is "honorable" without thinking about, y'know, logic. Ned warning Cersei, Rob marrying Jeyne... yeah, what great guys. I'm sure their men were thinking just that as they got slaughtered due to their leaders' poor decisions.
I think this is probably a large part of why I prefer Tyrion--he, too, tries to do what is right (well, most of the time). He wants to feed the people, he wants to protect the city. But he knows that blind obedient honor isn't going to solve any of these problems, which is why he uses his brain, makes deals and alliances, and does what he can to find practical solutions. He's not off living in some fantasy world where honor solves everything, a la Ned.
It's kind of interesting how Ned and Tywin are these two extremes, Ned with his "honor is more important than anything, including my own survival," and Tywin with his "my own survival and advancement is more important than anything, including honor." (Their "own" survival applies to their families, too.) It really doesn't work out well for either of them, does it?
Tyrion and Jaime are both sort of middle ground, although it's fascinating watching them sort of trade places, Jaime becoming more idealistic (or reclaiming his lost idealism) and Tyrion becoming increasingly disillusioned. But they both (at their best) try to find a way to help others without ignoring the realities of the world. (Which we see in Tyrion's time as the Hand, doing his best to protect the city, and Jaime's protection of Brienne and his attempts to whip the Kingsguard back into shape.)
I don't know. I just hate seeing these messy, complicated, fascinating people being reduced to simplistic archetypes. Jaime's not pure evil (or pure good) and if you insist on viewing him only one way, you're missing so much of the depth and nuance and beauty of the story. And Spike's not just an evil predator trying to take advantage of Buffy, and Logan's not... whatever the hell they hate Logan so much for (???).
(And it's such a rigid way of thinking--one strike and you're out. No forgiveness, no reform, certainly no redemption. I just can't understand wanting to dismiss people so quickly and easily. Jaime did commit a horrible wrong [though, as far as I can tell, really only one], which was tossing Bran out the window. And he's paid for it in the most appropriate way I can imagine; every single thing he took from Bran has been taken from him. Now they're both cripples, now neither can be a knight. Jaime's suffered humiliation, degradation, has been made utterly aware of all of his own faults, and he's made the choice to change and to become a better person. What more can you ask? Unless you just want to blindly harp on how badly you want to see him die a horrible death, because it's so easy to think in absolutes and so very scary to have to deal with grey areas.)
Um... wow. I wasn't planning to write so much. That's what I get for reading newsgroups. *sigh*
Oh yeah, so most recently in my Netflix odyssey, two more Christian Bale movies: "Newsies" and "Equilibrium." Good god, this guy has made some terrible films! They were both almost painful to watch, the experience redeemed only by Bale's attractiveness and consistent ability to act despite some of the most incredibly lame scripts I've ever seen.
"Newsies" is a musical that really should not have been a musical (it'd have worked slightly better without the pointless interruptions and terrible music) about an ultra-Disneyfied version of a newsboy strike in 1899. This is a cliche-ridden piece of tripe, with every conceivable stereotype thrown in--the lovable little cripple, the evil orphanage owner, the greedy newspaper baron, the hero who dreams of a better life in Santa Fe, blah blah blah. I was slightly impressed that they made some attempt to explore the conflict between doing what's best for yourself and doing what's best for the community (by having Bale's character briefly accept being paid off to end the strike), but of course it all ended with watered down easy answers. Oh, and the homoeroticism was fun, with the heterosexual romance story tacked on in only the barest way.
"Equilibrium" was a poorly made, apparently low budget (it certainly looked cheap) rip-off of "Fahrenheit 451," "1984," "Brave New World," "THX-1138," "The Matrix," and damn near every other book or movie in the same vein. It was sad, because such stories have potential, and its nice to see an action movie attempting to engage your brain. The theme, that the highs of human emotion are worth the accompanying lows, was admirable, as was its criticism of government repression. But it was so preachy, so humorless, so nonsensical, and so poorly done that there was really no point; why was this film even made? (Well, as a blatant attempt to cash in on "The Matrix," I assume.) It was particularly sad because Christian Bale was actually very good in his role, and Sean Bean had a cameo that was quite lovely (and so should've been expanded!).
I was channel surfing the other day and came across Logan Echolls. I haven't watched, or really even thought about, VM for a couple of weeks. So the level of my emotional reaction was surprising; it was close to the kind of affectionate happiness you get when you see an old friend after a long time apart. I've not felt that level of emotional investment in a fictional character since, oh... Spike.
I guess we'll see what happens when the new season starts. Thus far I haven't felt any need to write essays or participate in the fandom or any of that. And I've (hopefully) learned my lesson from BtVS: don't get your hopes up and never allow some TV show to influence your own personal happiness. So, emotional investment heavily checked. And I'm sure it helps immensely that I'm not a shipper, though I continue to hate the way that these shows are framed so that any character who is not important to the main character is supposed to be considered unimportant by the audience, too.
Part of what I love about "A Song of Ice and Fire" (to switch topics here a bit) is its true ensemble nature. There is no one hero around whom everything else revolves, and no one "truth" against which all opinions are judged. You can have characters on completely different sides who are each understandable and sympathetic despite their differences (and it's also nice that the series has many different factions, not a "one side vs the other side" binary).
Although, I've been reading the alt.fan.grrm newsgroup, and it's only reinforcing my refusal to become heavily involved in a fandom again. It's really like Spike fandom in the "Crush" days; it's not just that your opinion is Wrong, it's that you are a Bad Person for even daring to have that opinion. I know it's just fiction, but I don't enjoy seeing this cruel and judgmental and unforgiving side of humanity, even when applied to an imaginary conflict.
And it really drives me crazy how many people reject the nuances of the series and try to turn it into a "black vs white," "good vs evil," traditional fantasy narrative. Martin explicitly subverts that cliche, so why, if you're a fan, would you try to restore it? (It's like those BtVS fans who love their feminist hero so much that they want to see her... pregnant and married and taking care of the kids while Daddy Spike (or Angel) brings home the money.)
For example, these people who insist that the Starks are the True Good Guys, and the Lannisters are the True Bad Guys. And that no matter how much Martin muddies the waters with moral ambiguity, ultimately the binary holds.
This kind of judgmental attitude isn't just simplistic, it destroys one of the most enjoyable qualities of the series, which is its ability to really explore moral ambiguity (not just play at it for thrills, a la BtVS), and to show that most people can't be easily categorized into "good" and "evil," that one person's evil monster is another person's great hero. Martin lets us see all these factions, and all these people, and all their different points of view--and there is no easy answer about who's "right" and "wrong." (Aside from a few extreme examples like Gregor Clegane.)
The author lets the readers draw our own conclusions, and he doesn't let us off the hook easily. You can't just say "Well, Ned Stark is an honorable fellow, and he hates the Lannisters, so the Lannisters are bad. And he supported the rebellion, so the rebellion must've been good. And his good buddy Robert says that Rheagar was a monster, so Rheagar's death must've been justified. And he's got a loving and dutiful wife, so her family must be decent well-meaning people." In fact Martin specifically introduces these fallacies at the beginning of the series so that he can knock them down. Like with the Lannisters: first you find yourself liking and respecting Tyrion's almost despite yourself, then learn later that Jaime and Tommen aren't so bad, while you increasingly question Arya's dark side and Ned and Robb's failures. Or take the case of Rheagar; all we hear about Rheagar in the first book is about how he's this horrible kidnapping raping monster. It's only much later that we realize that this is Robert's point of view, that Robert (like everyone else) is deeply flawed, and that Rheagar may have actually been a pretty cool guy.
I don't know. Part of the reason I haven't been watching TV much lately is that I'm so sick of the black and white, good vs evil binary divide that damn near every popular narrative clings to. It's boring. (Incidentally, this is why one of the few shows I'm trying to keep up with is "Rescue Me," because it too explores its flawed characters in interesting ways without relying on simple moral judgments or taking the easy way out.)
And I think this is why characters like Jaime, or Spike, (or Logan for some reason that I can't really figure out because he's not even that "bad") inspire such vehement hatred in their detractors. They threaten the binary, the simple good vs evil framework, that makes it easy to make moral judgments without having to actually think. They threaten the framework that lets you gloss over the difficult questions and affirm your own correctness without actually examining anyone else's side.
Like, for example, it drives me crazy seeing these people rip Jaime to shreds for killing Aerys. "Jaime swore an oath to protect King Aerys, therefore the 'right' thing to do is to protect the king no matter what." It doesn't require thought; just obedience. To these people it doesn't matter at all that Jaime killed Aerys in order to protect the entire city, thousands of people, from being horribly incinerated. Jaime had to make a choice between what was officially decreed to be "right," protecting the king at all costs, and what he personally believed to be right, which was to protect the thousands of innocent people of the city. And he chose to protect the innocent people and kill the insane king, at great cost to his own personal reputation, no less. It just boggles my mind that people think he should've stood aside and let the city burn, because it was "right."
And part of it is this weird conflation of "honorable" with "right" that the Starks (and their fans), in particular, seem to suffer from. The series opens with Ned coldly killing this poor tormented crazy guy who's just escaped from a bunch of ice zombies, and we're supposed to think this is "right"? Ned and Rob both bring about their own downfalls (and that of many of their followers) doing what is "honorable" without thinking about, y'know, logic. Ned warning Cersei, Rob marrying Jeyne... yeah, what great guys. I'm sure their men were thinking just that as they got slaughtered due to their leaders' poor decisions.
I think this is probably a large part of why I prefer Tyrion--he, too, tries to do what is right (well, most of the time). He wants to feed the people, he wants to protect the city. But he knows that blind obedient honor isn't going to solve any of these problems, which is why he uses his brain, makes deals and alliances, and does what he can to find practical solutions. He's not off living in some fantasy world where honor solves everything, a la Ned.
It's kind of interesting how Ned and Tywin are these two extremes, Ned with his "honor is more important than anything, including my own survival," and Tywin with his "my own survival and advancement is more important than anything, including honor." (Their "own" survival applies to their families, too.) It really doesn't work out well for either of them, does it?
Tyrion and Jaime are both sort of middle ground, although it's fascinating watching them sort of trade places, Jaime becoming more idealistic (or reclaiming his lost idealism) and Tyrion becoming increasingly disillusioned. But they both (at their best) try to find a way to help others without ignoring the realities of the world. (Which we see in Tyrion's time as the Hand, doing his best to protect the city, and Jaime's protection of Brienne and his attempts to whip the Kingsguard back into shape.)
I don't know. I just hate seeing these messy, complicated, fascinating people being reduced to simplistic archetypes. Jaime's not pure evil (or pure good) and if you insist on viewing him only one way, you're missing so much of the depth and nuance and beauty of the story. And Spike's not just an evil predator trying to take advantage of Buffy, and Logan's not... whatever the hell they hate Logan so much for (???).
(And it's such a rigid way of thinking--one strike and you're out. No forgiveness, no reform, certainly no redemption. I just can't understand wanting to dismiss people so quickly and easily. Jaime did commit a horrible wrong [though, as far as I can tell, really only one], which was tossing Bran out the window. And he's paid for it in the most appropriate way I can imagine; every single thing he took from Bran has been taken from him. Now they're both cripples, now neither can be a knight. Jaime's suffered humiliation, degradation, has been made utterly aware of all of his own faults, and he's made the choice to change and to become a better person. What more can you ask? Unless you just want to blindly harp on how badly you want to see him die a horrible death, because it's so easy to think in absolutes and so very scary to have to deal with grey areas.)
Um... wow. I wasn't planning to write so much. That's what I get for reading newsgroups. *sigh*
Oh yeah, so most recently in my Netflix odyssey, two more Christian Bale movies: "Newsies" and "Equilibrium." Good god, this guy has made some terrible films! They were both almost painful to watch, the experience redeemed only by Bale's attractiveness and consistent ability to act despite some of the most incredibly lame scripts I've ever seen.
"Newsies" is a musical that really should not have been a musical (it'd have worked slightly better without the pointless interruptions and terrible music) about an ultra-Disneyfied version of a newsboy strike in 1899. This is a cliche-ridden piece of tripe, with every conceivable stereotype thrown in--the lovable little cripple, the evil orphanage owner, the greedy newspaper baron, the hero who dreams of a better life in Santa Fe, blah blah blah. I was slightly impressed that they made some attempt to explore the conflict between doing what's best for yourself and doing what's best for the community (by having Bale's character briefly accept being paid off to end the strike), but of course it all ended with watered down easy answers. Oh, and the homoeroticism was fun, with the heterosexual romance story tacked on in only the barest way.
"Equilibrium" was a poorly made, apparently low budget (it certainly looked cheap) rip-off of "Fahrenheit 451," "1984," "Brave New World," "THX-1138," "The Matrix," and damn near every other book or movie in the same vein. It was sad, because such stories have potential, and its nice to see an action movie attempting to engage your brain. The theme, that the highs of human emotion are worth the accompanying lows, was admirable, as was its criticism of government repression. But it was so preachy, so humorless, so nonsensical, and so poorly done that there was really no point; why was this film even made? (Well, as a blatant attempt to cash in on "The Matrix," I assume.) It was particularly sad because Christian Bale was actually very good in his role, and Sean Bean had a cameo that was quite lovely (and so should've been expanded!).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 02:14 pm (UTC)Also, people who think Logan is EVUL or whatever clearly never met any teenaged boys. Puh-leese.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 02:29 pm (UTC)I don't always comment, but I really like reading your babble. Just FYI.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 03:20 pm (UTC)I've seen quite a bit of the new Battlestar Galactica, and I think it's very well done, but it hasn't captured me emotionally. Intellectually, I can see why it's good, but I don't really have any motivation to watch it. (Plus
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 03:00 pm (UTC)You will adore 'Dalek'.