Stuff

[shipperx]

My internet has been behaving in a hinky manner all night. Grr!

A few brief comments:

* Finished watching the Fringe Season 1 DVD's. I saw the original premiere but was rather turned off by the female lead. I no longer really remember why. Dana Scully disappointment syndrome maybe (IOW -- 'not as good as Scully! Who rocked! And who will rock forever! And I am biased. I know it and I do not care! ) Olivia isn't Scully. But, really, there's nothing wrong with her either. Perhaps I judged her too quickly in the pilot.

Anyway, I was surprised by how much of the show is centered on Olivia. I thought it was going to be a more 50/50 thing with PaceyPeter. Or, given experience with most shows, 70% PaceyPeter/30% Olivia. Turns out, as far as Season 1 goes, it's 70 % Olivia. Anyway, it's very, very X-Filian but not really the X-Files. I'd still put the best of the X-Files above Fringe, but Fringe isn't bad. And it does have its own mythology that I'm intrigued by.

Now, I have to find Season 2 DVDs. I don't think they're out yet. Hulu has part of Season 2 up, but I don't think they have all of it.

---

* Watched Jane Campion's Bright Star OnDemand tonight. It's the story of the Romantic poet John Keats and the girl that he loved (Fanny Brawne), showing that he was too poor to marry her (but she became engaged to him anyway) and how he died at a very young age. Given that downer of a plot, it's a surprisingly sweet and lovely story. It's very easy to sympathize with both leads, and the cinematography is beautiful. It's a quiet film, but I liked it.

---

* No doubt inspired by her many vampire meta posts last week, I bought Meg Cabot's new vampire book Insatiable. So, I guess, mission accomplished with her having done a bunch of vampire commentary last week.

Thus far I'm of two minds about the novel. The good parts:

* At least, through what I've read (roughly 1/4 of the book), it's a very light, fluffy read. And I mean that in a "I'm HAPPY to read fluff!" way. I'm not in the mood for dark, edgy, or deep at the moment. The world has been depressing enough. Fluff is fine by me. It's been quite breezy so far.

* Cabot has done a fairly good job of making the female lead sympathetic from the get go. Following the rules of Hollywood to 'make the character suffer in a sympathetic manner' so as to bond the audience to her, the heroine is introduced as being late for work, under paid, and having just been passed over for a promotion. She's also allowing her brother, who was a mortgage derivative trader before the crash and is now out of work, to sleep on her sofa (exactly how fast did Cabot write this book? The brother's story seems very 'of the moment'). This is then topped off with giving said heroine a supernatural gift (she can see how people will die). That last bit seemed terribly similar to Sookie Stackhouse to me but, as most of the book seems to be riffing on current vampire pop culture, I shouldn't have been surprised that not only is it somewhat similar to Sookie Stackhouse but that the character herself is also aware of the similarity. She complains that Sookie can read minds, which would be a far more convenient skill than just knowing when people will die. Anyway, most successful in makiing the heroine likable was that when she meets a young woman on the train and 'sees' that girl will eventually be killed by an abusive boyfriend, she immediately gives the girl her card and number, telling the girl to call her anytime, day or night, swearing that she will help her. When they first introduced that the heroine could see deaths, I thought that she'd go all cynical 'I can't save everyone' on us, but apparently this is not a cynical heroine. She's struck a balance between knowing she cannot save everyone and at least actively seeking to help people avoid those deaths if she can. Her going above and beyond in the case of a complete stranger did indeed win her brownie points in my book.

* Also, like Cabot's posts of the past week, it's quite clear that Cabot is conversant in pop-culture vampires. This book is clearly satirizing/paying homage to many of them. There are very clear references/parallels to Bram Stoker's Dracula and maybe, just maybe, a hint or two of Elizabeth Costova's execrable The Historian (somewhere in my archive of posts is a rant on how terrible I found that book to be). There's also the aforementioned Sookie Stackhouse shout out and some blatant mockage of vampires that sparkle.

* Cabot is also clearly conversant with soap operas. The heroine is a writer for a daytime soap opera that is titled Insatiable but which sounds one freaking hell a lot like All My Children. I'm just sayin'... The heroine complains about the industry's slavish devotion to the youth demographic to the detriment of show veterans (specifically mentioning the daytime fad of killing of decades long vets in rather gruesome, gratuitous, and fan-insulting manners) and the way that this obsession with attracting teens has been destroying shows for quite some time now. When she complains about one of their competitor shows having introduced a vampire storyline, all I can think about is greasy (why is he greasy in every role?!) Michael Easton having walked around the soap Port Charles being cheesy in an uber cheesy vampire storyline (that most fans never forgave the show for because it more or less killed that soap and because it broke up Kevin and Lucy! They made Lucy fall for a damned vampire and Lucy become a Slayer(And yes the whole debacle was a blatant rip-off on BtVS at that time) and... did I mention that they broke up Kevin and Lucy?

I hold a grudge.

And I suspect Cabot may as well. As I said, her fictional soap opera bears a striking resemblance to All My Children, which was on the same network as Port Charles. And the 'higher ups' in this fictional soap world bear some similarities to Proctor and Gamble as well as to the Dobsons (of ye old soap, Santa Barbara)and/or the (first generation) Cordays (Days of Our Lives)and/or the (first generation) Bells (The Young and the Restless).

I know far too much about soaps, don't I?

Back to the vampires...

* Meanwhile there's a Van Helsing/Watcher/Slayer character running around staking vampires with "Mr. Sticky" (Yeah, we know where that reference is coming from.) Unfortunately, said Van Helsing/Watcher/Slayer mostly reminds me of... (gulp) Riley (mixed with just a tad of The DiVinci Code. That's partly because Van Helsing-ish is part of a secret military unit and partly because said secret military unit is part of the Vatican).

Which brings me to the thing I haven't liked thus far:

* I'm not sure I'm going to appreciate where this is going. This is clearly a pop-culture riff on romance vampires. I appreciate that bit and I admit to having laughed in the scene where the heroine mocked "sparkling." Certainly there is a great deal in the whole "Twilight" phenomenon to be mocked. Brutally. And it's amusing.

However, having read some of Cabot's posts last week, it's pretty clear that Cabot is in the Jossian school of "romanticizing vampires is romanticizing death!" mode of thought and this leads to my problem... which is that I feel like I'm being set-up to then side with the Van Helsing/Watcher/Slayer who is going around rescuing stupid girls from their romanticized vampire illusions by dusting/staking vampires. My issue is that it's coming off as kind of patronizing.

She has this male character going around lecturing girls on how unhealthy it for them to romanticize vampires, and if the heroine (when she meets him) doesn't point out that there's some patriarchical sexism in his going around lecturing women about their sex lives, I'm probably going to have issues.

For one thing, I've been in the Buffy fandom for a long time where we've dissected moral questions regarding staking vamps in excruciating detail and, with Cabot having set-up that most vampires don't murder their victims, at least not in the 20th and 21st century (i.e. since the book's 'romantic' lead/vampire took control-- I'm finding that the Van Helsing-ish (but younger and with a six pack) character is actually trodding in a gray area.

I mean, kill vampires because they kill humans? Hell yes! But kill vampires because they make girls' hair less bouncy, cause anemia, and then dump said gullible girl and leave? Douchey, but somewhat less deserving of a death sentence, y'know? This on top of the aforementioned unintended sexism of having a male character doing the lecturing.

What causes me to subconsciously associate him with Riley is that I feel the author weighting the story in this character's favor. We're supposed to think he's the good guy. And, granted, his wearing a Goofy watch is endearing. However, I've found him less sympathetic than the primary vampire that he wants to hunt/kill.

I'm not very far into the book, so there's a lot of room for Cabot to work this out, but, honestly, thus far, the lead vampire of the novel comes across as a nicer person than the Van Helsing-ish one, and I'm unsure whether I'm supposed to actually feel that way.

One question it has raised for me is why do so many people feel the need to lecture girls/women on their sexual fantasies? We've run across this phenomenon for years online. There are tons of fanboys to opine about this on various boards, coming up with accusations about how 'messed up' women are for liking 'the bad boys.' Fury certainly felt the need to openly lecture female fans that they were liking the wrong character. Marti Noxon did as well. And, in his way, given how many times he returns to the 'bad boyfriend' trope, Joss felt the need to do that through story. I wonder, how many entertainment writers feel the need to lecture men on liking fake breasts and dimwitted bleached blonde Playboy models? Sexy Cheerleaders? Strippers? Etc.?

Is it just women's sexual fantasies that deserve earnest passive/aggressive lectures about what women 'should' or 'shouldn't' find to be sexy? I'm asking.

Anyway, I may be really jumping ahead of myself. Goodness knows, the vampire romance genre is more than ripe for spoofing. And I'm not very far into the book. It's just that right now I have Riley "You must like him! He's the human! He's better! Because he's human! Like him!!!" vibes/warning bells ringing where I think I'm not supposed to question the 'good guy's' actions... even when he does annoying, vaguely sexist stuff because liking the vampire is the 'anti-feminist' thing to do. Or so I'm told.

On the other hand, at this point they clearly are making the lead vampire at least appear to be likable. So I'm not sure where they're going with that.

Maybe it's just memories of Joss and Marti resurfacing. At any rate, I want the heroine whenever she meets the Van Helsing-ish character to have some issues with a guy lecturing women about what turns them on. Even if he's right, he sounds terribly patronizing while saying it.

Oh well, the story is fast and breezy enough that I'll see the entire thing through and know where Cabot is going. It's been fairly lighthearted thus far.

Comments

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

One question it has raised for me is why do so many people feel the need to lecture girls/women on their sexual fantasies? We've run across this phenomenon for years online. There are tons of fanboys to opine about this various boards, coming up with accusations about how 'messed up' women are for liking 'the bad boys.' Fury certainly felt the need to openly lecture female fans that they were liking the wrong character. Marti Noxon did as well. And, in his way, given how many times he returns to the 'bad boyfriend' trope, Joss felt the need to do that through story. I wonder, how many entertainment writers feel the need to lecture men on liking fake breasts, strippers, and dimwitted bleached blonde Playboy models? Sexy Cheerleaders? Porn stars? Etc.? Is it just women's sexual fantasies that deserve earnest passive/aggressive lectures about who women should or shouldn't find to be sexy? I'm asking.

I kind of love you for this entire paragraph.

One thing on Meg Cabot: I've been harassing the little sister, trying to get her to remember if Mia from the Princess Diaries shipped Bangel or Spuffy. Yes, this is a pertinent question. I distinctly recall a scene in the Christmas book (no clue what it was called; I just know it was the Christmas one) where she sells one of her Buffy action figures on eBay to buy her boyfriend a cherished record, and her boyfriend sells another cherished record to buy her a Sombrero-wearing Giles action figure. It was a total "Gift of the Magi" ripoff, and at the time I was greatly amused by the specificity of the exchanged gifts. Now, however, I have some recollection of Bangel fans crowing on a board about how a fictional character shipped their ship, and I'm trying to get real-world confirmation from the sis (who read all the Princess Diaries books back in the day) about the subject. Yes, I'm obsessive, but this is what I think about when Meg Cabot's name comes up. And I don't like it when self-congratulatory Bangels get more ridiculous ammo from popular culture, because they sure as hell know how to abuse their position as the privileged ship. And it bugs me.

So, in other (non-obsessive) news, looking forwards to your review of the book.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... don't know. The only really obvious Buffy reference thus far has been the existence of "Mr Sticky." I'm waiting for an Angel/Spike reference, but one hasn't popped up yet. The thing is full of Bram Stoker parallels. I won't go into all of them, but there's a relatively strong element of Dracula spoofing. And there was the matter that after she's rescued from danger by tall, dark, and the audience knows is vampire-guy, she and her friend note the similarity to Twilight and asking whether he sparkled (and that's before she knows he's a vampire). And, the lead romantic vampire's brother runs Fangtasia a vampire bar which made him seem just a tad-like Eric Northman to me (albeit he isn't the first vampire club owner in the history of pop culture). So, I expect a Spike and/or Angel reference to pop up somewhere.

Cabot does mention both Spike and Angel in her post about vampires (http://www.megcabot.com/2010/06/vampires-don%e2%80%99t-try-it-at-home/), and I thought Spike got the better write-up.

In her mentioning of vampire romance tropes, though I am pleased to note that Spike doesn't fit them. He isn't the tall, dark RICH guy who comes in an sweeps the heroine off her feet with his mysteriousness, his wealth, and his alpha male phermones.

But then, we always knew that Spike was special. ;)

[owenthurman.livejournal.com]

I wonder, how many entertainment writers feel the need to lecture men on liking fake breasts, strippers, and dimwitted bleached blonde Playboy models? Sexy Cheerleaders? Porn stars? Etc.? Is it just women's sexual fantasies that deserve earnest passive/aggressive lectures about who women should or shouldn't find to be sexy? I'm asking.

Boys get lectured all the time about liking that stuff. And the lecturing has absolutely no effect on what we like.

Anyway, let us know when you're done: did you like it?

[angearia.livejournal.com]

And topped it off with giving said heroine a supernatural gift (she can see how people will die).

I think it's a bit too easy to say Sookie Stackhouse is the influence there. I read a book by Linda Howard written in the mid-90's that had a character with the same exact power--except she painted death scenes in her sleep. And this predated Sookie.

When it comes to the supernatural, there's all sorts of similar stories. It kinda reminds me of other professional writers being said to ripoff concepts from Neil Gaiman or the like. Then Gaiman comes out and says it was older influences more than likely, that we all draw from that earlier foundation for stories so there's bound to be similarities.

So it seems the character you're describing is connected to Sookie, but I don't think it's clear in terms of causality. More like the author is aware of the similarity, but perhaps the character arose from more the conceptual power itself.


wonder, how many entertainment writers feel the need to lecture men on liking fake breasts, strippers, and dimwitted bleached blonde Playboy models? Sexy Cheerleaders? Porn stars? Etc.? Is it just women's sexual fantasies that deserve earnest passive/aggressive lectures about who women should or shouldn't find to be sexy? I'm asking.

Brilliant point. And from what you've described, it sounds like the Riley character is a douche for killing vampires who aren't out to hurt humans. It's like killing someone for spreading an STD--I can see the angry impulse, but it's not justified, especially if you heal from what was done to you through sex and if you knowingly go into the sex.

At any rate, I want the heroine (whenever she meets the Van Helsing-ish) character to have some issues with a guy lecturing girls about what turns them on. Even if he's right, he sounds terribly patronizing while doing this.

I have trouble seeing why what he's doing is justified. Since when does anyone have the right to dictate what someone else finds sexually attractive? It just seems like a bad set-up.

Enjoyed reading your thoughts!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

think it's a bit too easy to say Sookie Stackhouse is the influence there. I read a book by Linda Howard written in the mid-90's that had a character with the same exact power--except she painted death scenes in her sleep. And this predated Sookie

I could see that. Except the character herself also compares the gift to Sookie's and says that Sookie got the more useful gift.

Brilliant point. And from what you've described, it sounds like the Riley character is a douche for killing vampires who aren't out to hurt humans. It's like killing someone for spreading an STD--I can see the angry impulse, but it's not justified, especially if you heal from what was done to you through sex and if you knowingly go into the sex.

Well, in this character's defense, there is a vampire serial killer as well. But the vampire serial killer is in New York and he's staking vamps in Tennessee. Plus the vampire (Dracula's son) that the guy really wants to kill is also the head vampire who is searching for the vampire serial killer because said serial killer is defying his rules of "do not kill the humans."

The guy that the Van Helsing-ish character staked was basically a lowlife who was feeding on a girl but who would ultimately have just dumped her when she became too anemic to be useful, he wasn't intending to kill her. He wasn't a "yay! vampire!" vamp but I thought a summary death sentence was a bit much.

[nutmeg3.livejournal.com]

While nothing will ever replace The X-Files for me (Mulder and Scully's chemistry was off the charts hot, for one thing, and you just can't replicate that stuff at will), I really love Fringe and have watched from the beginning. They did some great stuff with the mythology this year, and it seems to be handled intelligently and consistently (and the latter was Chris Carter's very weak point), which is a huge plus on top of everything else I like. This season's finale was, imo, excellent.

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

One question it has raised for me is why do so many people feel the need to lecture girls/women on their sexual fantasies? We've run across this phenomenon for years online. There are tons of fanboys to opine about this on various boards, coming up with accusations about how 'messed up' women are for liking 'the bad boys.' Fury certainly felt the need to openly lecture female fans that they were liking the wrong character. Marti Noxon did as well. And, in his way, given how many times he returns to the 'bad boyfriend' trope, Joss felt the need to do that through story.

It's funny that you posted this because I was just mulling over a post on the same topic. I'm still pissed off about James Marsters' "If a man is bad, he'll be bad to you" lectures, and David's Fury's "I wouldn't let my daughter date Spike." It's so condescending--how dare these men tell women what it's okay to fantasize about.

I was thinking about it because I just watched Dark Angel, which spends much of its time ripping on the "bad boy" (who's an infinitely more fun and interesting character) in favor of the dull, self-righteous, controlling "good boyfriend" type. Which gave me flashbacks to BtVS and the whole Riley/Xander lecturing Buffy about sleeping with Spike, of course, and also to Veronica Mars, where Logan was clearly a more complex and emotionally-connected character than Duncan, but the show was insistent about pushing the Veronica/Duncan pairing, down to playing Garbage's "Bad Boyfriend" over a Logan scene.

I tend to think it all goes back to the condescending jealousy and entitlement of Nice Guy (TM) syndrome, the myth that it's all womens' faults that loser men can't get the women of their dreams simply by existing. (I don't know why women write it too, except that they've also bought into the myth.)

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

Keep watching Fringe — season 2 is AWESOME. Really good.

[chloris67.livejournal.com]

Men may get that lecture but I don't think that anyone expects them to listen or even really wants them to since we all know they can take care of themselves! It's weak-willed women that need to be told what's good for them or they might get all confused between reality and fantasy.

with Cabot having set-up that most vampires don't murder their victims, at least not in the 20th and 21st century (i.e. since the book's 'romantic' lead/vampire took control-- I'm finding that the Van Helsing-ish (but younger and with a six pack) character is actually trodding in a gray area.

Hmmmm...that feels a bit darker than grey to me. There are various subsets of the human race that are more likely to kill than these vampires. We don't kill them just in case.

[silverusagi]

Nice post! You know, despite my liking vampires, there have been very few vampire books I've been able to get into. They either seem poorly written or cliche-ridden. I really liked the first three Anne Rice books, but she should have quit while she was ahead. I read about half of The Historian, but found it boring. I liked Sunshine by Robin McKinley, partly because it was just so different. I read the first Sookie Stackhouse book, and thought it had flat prose and undeveloped characters. Right now I'm reading Let the Right One In, but I'm not very far in it. But it just seems like so many modern vampires novels can be boiled down to "girl meets dark mysterious stranger," and the plot will likely have a love triangle. Paranormal Romance as a genre doesn't interest me. I don't want the main conflict to be who the heroine will end up with. I just want the paranormal.