Terence, This Is Stupid Stuff

May 14, 2012

Coulson in the Fridge: It takes a death in the family to make a hero

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILERS ALL THE SPOIED THINGS

So why was it necessary for Joss Whedon to kill Agent Phil Coulson (my favorite thing about the movie verse. Brace for weeping bias). He’s gone on the record to say that killing Coulson wasn’t his idea, but he didn’t disagree with him. It “had” to happen to bring this rag tag bunch of personalities together. But did it?

Comics has a long history of killing people to serve as motivation for a hero to go a hero-ing. To be fair this didn’t start in comics—the Illiad has a fairly famous super hero who only enters battle AFTER a beloved fellow soldier has fallen. There’s something moving and incredible (and true) in the idea that one man’s love can change the fate of nations; but it’s gotten to the point where nothing can happen until it’s “personal.” Bruce Wayne wouldn’t be a hero unless his parents had died; Spiderman’s Uncle Ben had to be killed to show him the light. It appears heroes aren’t motivated by a ideals, or a desire to do good, or protect people. It’s vengeance that makes the hero.

Coulson himself points out as he’s dying that it will take something like this (his death) to bring the Avengers together as a team. Fury then intentionally covers Coulson’s prized vintage Captain America trading cards in his blood to show to the gathered Avengers; he, too, believes it will take the death of one of their own to make the team work (he states as much to Hill when she points out what a manipulative jackass he was being). And then Iron Man says to Captain America that Loki has made it “personal.”

The magic of the dead side character works its magic, and the team comes together and fights Loki and the invading army of Chitauri. And here’s my problem with this—other than my favorite character getting offed—it doesn’t seem necessary. Of course the desire to avenge a friend is a great motivator, perhaps especially for a team of heroes called The Avengers, but don’t we want our heroes to be moved by something greater? The world is about to be destroyed, billions of lives wiped out, people enslaved by Loki—shouldn’t that be enough for our heroes? Why do we need to see them mourn a personal loss before we can accept their conviction to the cause? Or is it just easier to understand that?

Of course, while Loki is busy stabbing Coulson and looking fabulous the team is trying to keep the flying base from crashing into the ocean. There are hundreds of lives as stake, and so they do the hero thing—set aside their egos and pull it together. It seems as if they were already able to work as a team BEFORE Coulson was killed. Yeah, Hulk is rampaging and Thor gets dropped into the ocean, but Captain America and Iron Man (the main ego conflict of the movie) are working together quite well. They’re doing it because the base is under attack, and there’s no space or time for them to fight one another when there are so many lives at stake. And I wish Whedon had chosen to follow that line of motivation rather than taking the emotional shortcut of killing off a friend. I want to see a team motivated by something other than vengeance; motivated instead by the desire to do the right thing, even at huge personal sacrifice, because they can, because they know that there’s no other option. It might be harder to write, but I think you’ll get something closer to a true hero then, rather than a loose knit team of vigilantes.

Also, stop killing off my favorite characters Joss Whedon.

6:43pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyLUkK1r

May 13, 2012

geneparade:

In the 19th Century having a photograph taken was a lengthy process. Frustrated by the difficulties of getting children to sit still long enough to snap a proper photo , photographers in the 1800’s conceived of a technique called “The Hidden Mother”. Draping a sheet over the mothers head in an attempt to camouflage her as a part of the furniture to better emphasize the child, the mother was then able to hold her infant and keep them still long enough for the camera to get an exposure. Vintage photographs already have a eerie feel to them, but these images of moms as cloaked phantoms take the creep factor to the next level.

(via thehairpin)

5:14pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyLQc1Lf

(Notes: 16,414)

May 9, 2012

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

—

President Obama, on why he supports same-sex marriage. (via theatlantic)

Finally.

(via theatlantic)

3:14pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyLAfNNE

(Notes: 651)

May 8, 2012

marthazinger

(via powells)

6:34pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyL7bnEa

(Notes: 16,095)

May 6, 2012

adventuretimefan:

Avenger Time! with Cap, Thor, Hulk & Iron Man

(via adventuretime)

11:17pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyL184g9

(Notes: 10,575)

May 4, 2012

americanchickens:

How to write a ghost story in 4 steps.

8:44pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyKt-FJr

(Notes: 9)

April 28, 2012

Genre Wars Part ∞

Right. So.

Sigh. Did you read that article? It, uh, had some good links in it, I guess. It was short, and kind of weird, especially for a publication I’m usually pretty pleased by. The Guardian’s culture section is normally good, but then they throw his out there and I’m just confused. What is the point, exactly?

So people who are buying e-books are mostly buying things other than “literary fiction.” It’s THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT, GUYS. This article seems most interested in justifying the existence of “literary fiction” as a genre separate from the dross that is rest of fiction to… make us care that people aren’t reading it anymore? Except we are? It’s not clear.

But I like this definition of the genre: “Literary fiction can be about anything, so long as it’s beautifully, intriguingly, surprisingly, gorgeously written, so long as it’s brilliantly constructed – from the word, to the sentence, the paragraph, the chapter, the novel and beyond.”

So the difference between literary fiction and fiction is that literary fiction is that it’s well written! Doesn’t matter what it’s about. On first glance that’s a nice sentiment, and then you think about it, and no that’s really patronizing. It ends by talking about this book that won the Golden Dagger, a mystery genre award, but it’s well written so it gets to leave the genre ghetto. Flood, the writer of the article, points out that arbitrary genre borders are silly but then immediately points “that the excellence of literary fiction is still worth celebrating.”

So all those silly genre definitions are pointless, except the one where we separate the “good” writing from the “bad” writing. As if those other writers working in science fiction, fantasy, romance, mystery, horror—they just don’t try hard enough, or care about the word enough.

And as someone who has worked in bookstores, seen ARC’s come out, looked into who is buying what manuscripts and how those nascent books are marketed, let me tell you something: “literary fiction” IS a genre, and it has rules, and those rules aren’t necessarily “prose.” A lot of people who are fans of literary fiction, or would be lit fic writers, claim that it is superior writing that cause things to be marketed as literary fiction, but it isn’t always (or even frequently). First off a lot of it is based on plot—a personal narrative projected against the backdrop of a national narrative; the quiet ways a family falls apart; nebbish, educated white slacker finds meaning in life—and then accepted styles of writing, and then they will usually have clear social commentary, but not always. If the manuscript falls into this genre, it will be marketed as literary. Rarely does work that pulls from other genres get marketed as literary fiction. And let me tell you right now it’s not getting shelved there. Even if one of the booksellers are sneaky, and dislike the arbitrary nature “literary fiction” as a genre, and tries to sneak really well written works in while her manager isn’t looking.

So the point being that what gets marked as literary fiction is not necessarily the true be-all, end-all of intelligent, good writing. There are some incredibly talented mystery and suspense writers, for example; I think we can all agree that John LeCarre, Patricia Highsmith, P.D. James—whether we like them or no—are good writers. They write “good prose.” Shirley Jackson (my One True Love) is still kickin’ it over in horror. Lindqvist is another incredible, intelligent writer who in spite of being critically very well received has yet to make the jump into “literary.” People might be reading great fiction that still just shows up in other genres. Or they’re taking a break and enjoying the hell out of some Hunger Games. AND THAT’S AWESOME. Maybe Collins’ writing lacks the poetry of great prose, but it had a story that people were drawn into, and reminded people that reading can be fun, and entertaining, and kind of sexy.

4:47pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyKVM60k

(Notes: 1)

April 25, 2012

Forbes Interview With Tony Stark

Tony Stark, my favorite ludicrously rich person (probably because he isn’t real; his ostentatious spending is just titillating)

11:39pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyKLEhhH

April 24, 2012

The Vampire Diaries and the third season slump; or, I swear this show used to be the best thing ever, I don’t understand what is happening

I unabashedly, unashamedly love The Vampire Diaries. I watched the first couple of episodes specifically to laugh; it was just cheesy enough, just over the top enough for me to watch it as a campy comedy, kind of like watching Dark Shadows.

But then at some point, midway through that first season, the show hit a kind of stride. It was still kind of corny, but it was also good. It had stellar, complex character driven writing that was still really funny and entertaining; it had really positive messages about sex (it won’t kill you, and it can be really good in a safe, sane, consensual setting!), the power of female-female friendships (super powerful, way more important than boys, God), and a powerful POC who was also a main character and had, for a while there, really interesting and important storylines. It talked about the attractiveness and danger of self destruction; the characters made bad choices, but managed to live with the consequences. It played around with ideas of what it means to be human, and okay, yeah, it was in a really overt way but I didn’t feel bad about babbling about how surprisingly good the show was.

Past tense, there. What the hell happened, TVD?! WHAT HAPPENED.

First off, in spite of all my love babbling up there the show was an imperfect beast. The character of Damon “Bad Boy” Salvatore is the elephant in the room in terms of my love for this show. Because if there’s one thing my friends and family know about me, it’s that I don’t like rapists and murderers, and tend to avoid entertainment that doesn’t treat rape and murder like the horrible acts of violence and complete disregard for the life and agency of other people that they are. It’s a pet peeve. But I watch Vampire Diaries every Thursday—in spite of the fact that Damon uses compulsion—vampire mind control—to remove the will of women and then proceed to have sex with them and drink their blood. RAPE is what that is usually called. And then he usually follows that up by getting angry and killing someone, or several someones. But he is a fan favorite, and I can even get why—Ian Somerhalder is a magnetic actor, and the writers give him all the good quips, and his love for Elena is like so true you guys.

He abused Caroline, Elena’s best friend, and for awhile he was feeling the consequences of that. Except then he was forgiven, because he’s ~tortured. And then he killed Jeremy, Elena’s brother, by snapping his neck and she was mad at him for almost a whole month, so. In so many other ways the show was good, I don’t know why they glorify a guy who’s essentially a selfish, cruel dick. He’s made to seem really attractive, and all his misdeeds are so quickly forgotten, but if one of my friends were stepping out with a guy like that there would be an intervention. That kind of behavior isn’t attractive, and we shouldn’t be pretending otherwise, it is DANGEROUS.

And then there’s just poor writing. It seemed like the Klaus storyline was going somewhere, but here’s the real surprise NO IT WASN’T. And Alaric, the friendly history teacher cum stand in parent to Elena turns out to have a serial killer alter ego… because we all have dark sides? The writing for this show has gone to the wrong side of manic and zany. It is circling back to its poor origins, and throwing a lot of its great characters under the bus. What made the show great was the ensemble nature of the writing and acting. Yes, Elena-Stefan-Damon were definitely the center of the town’s constant drama, but Bonnie, Caroline, Matt, Jeremy, Tyler… they had their own stories going, they were interesting and they represented a diverse group of people, with their own motivations and problems. They were what I tuned in for; finally a show that talked about different experiences of adolescence! And evil! So good!

But the unevenness now makes me feel sad and worried about the sustainability of those kinds of stories; not because I think they’re unsustainable, but because the show’s writers and producers seem to think so. They seem to have decided to set aside all that grappling with evil, the interesting villains, the characters who I loved and cheered for in favor of really focusing in on that love triangle. They have decided that’s the story they’re going to tell (/that’s the story they’re going to sell). I want to call it lazy, bad writing but I don’t think that’s what it is. I think it’s actually cynical writing. Which is too bad; I think that if they’d chosen instead to build on their amazing supporting cast, to allow the show to focus on their trials more and allow the ongoing love triangle to simmer on in the background they would have discovered that people would still watch and love the show. “If you build it, they will come,” etc., etc.

Of course it’s not too late yet. I’m holding out for some more of the former greatness, I just wish I had it now.

9:12pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z152QyKGdKab

(Notes: 1)

Filed under: The Vampire Diaries TVD ranting disappointment

April 17, 2012