![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
itsallovernowI stayed home this morning to wait for the cable guy to bring me a bright, shiny, new DVR!! While he was there, he hooked up the DVD player. I may never need to set the VCR again. This thought makes me weepy and giddy with joy (partly because I never learned to set the VCR in the living room, but at least M. could set it if I begged, but since the advent of digital cable in our lives, the zillion dollars in electronic equipment that we own to play things back do not actually do so due to a total lack of ability to be plugged into the correct holes. It's like some sort of orgy gone horribly wrong with all of those male and female plugs fighting for spots. I swear to god the receiver thinks someone's trying to have sex with it's nose!)
In other words, reading that damned book, Prep set me off on a night long consideration of narration and character and media and fortunately a good night sleep helped me bleed off the cranky because upon finishing the book, I was angry and upset and teary, and trust me. It's just not that kind of book.
I know, in part, that it's because I related too strongly to the main character and her situation, in part because of my experience going to Bennington, in part because of my high school experience.
I get both the need to not be seen, to keep saying no to overtures of friendship because you can't imagine that they're genuine, and the way of watching, observing without every quite saying what you mean, of categorizing people and being baffled when their lives somehow seem both more and less than they should be. The thing is, even as someone without money or particular beauty, I was never afraid to use what I had, unlike the main character Lee Fiora. I knew I was smart, and I was quick, and while I was desperately afraid of people, I wasn't afraid of learning, and I wasn't afraid to do new things. I engaged in my surroundings because I knew I had to. In part, so I could escape high school. One of the biggest shocks of my life was that college - socially - wasn't as different as I'd hoped. Instead, it presented an entirely new set of social hierarchies that I wasn't capable of navigating due to my own... lack of whatever. And yet, even there, I engaged. I studied, I learned, I joined things, I participated. I may have been lonely, but I wasn't... absent.
So at the end of Prep, more than anything, I was angry with Lee. For never figuring it out unti it was too late, for still finding an exhileration in her distance and absence and for the way she treasured loving this guy over anything else that she could have done with her time or her talents. (And okay, I also never bought that she was smart enough to get into and stay at Ault. The one mis-step in Sittenfeld's portrait is in showing Lee as a lackluster student at best. She's observant, is able to draw conclusions about people, but really, she never comes of as smart. And she should have. Her lack of ambition should have felt like more of a disconnect. Her teachers and the Dean should have picked up on it sooner.)
Regardless, when I finished the novel, and I think this is a testament to Sittenfeld's skill although I don't think I could read another of her books, I felt - viscerally felt - like I'd made the same choices as Lee, had ended up in the same distant, lost void. But the thing is, I didn't. I made better choices, used my intelligence and my talents, got myself to places where they were valued and eventually learned to make, and trust the making of, good friends. So how come I was distraught instead of elated that my real life had turned out better than this character's?
Obviously, we draw associations between characters and self. It's the whole reason we consume media of any kind - books, movies, tv, anime, etc. But what's fascinating is how those associations track, how we connect, and on what levels. I'm not just talking fannish adoration or connection, but those personal ley lines that we draw, that frequently result in more irrational reactions to how those characters are portrayed both in the original text and in derivative reactions (and by portrayed, I mean treated by everyone except the actor, who has ownership in an entirely different way). I think that's why, as fandoms, we react particularly strongly to characters like House, or Rodney McKay or Miles Vorkosigan - characters who are prickly and tricky and can be a giant pain in the ass but who seem tailored to our own personalities and reactions. Who have physical limitations or character flaws that we can relate to. And we tend to get defensive on their behalves, even when the characters themselves don't quite deserve it.
I admit to the same perversity. There are authors who I don't read because I dislike their characterizations of Aeryn. It's rarely something largely, but it's frequently something specific. I'm getting the same way with SG-1. I won't read anyone who makes the Daniel/Vala relationship something simpering or smacking of true love. I want the back and forth, the con and the play and the unexpected moments of understanding. And unless it's hot (or with Teal'c, or part of a threesome), I don't read Mitchell slash because that character doesn't track for me this way.
And much of that is because of things that I see in the characters that draw me in. I imprinted on Aeryn, and Scully, and maybe, just a little, on Zoe, because for the most part, all three of these women have reservoirs of strength that serve them absolutely. When they break, the audience breaks because their strength is intrinsic. And by strength here, I mean a stoicism, a fundamental belief in self and reason and order. And my reactions are personal to them. I still think it was a cheap shot to kill Wash because he gave something to Zoe that she didn't have before. I don't think his death served the story. I still think Simon's death would have served it better, and sure that's a personal preference, but it also strikes me as right. YMMV. But my connection to these characters comes from admiration, from joy, but also from things I either want to see in myself, hope to see in myself, or do see in myself. It's why their losses hurt so badly as well. (And yes, the double entrede stands - losses as in the things they lose, and losses as in the loss of them to the viewer).
What makes the characters I love - whether it be Vala, or Aeryn or both the 9th and 10th Doctors (curse you Liz!! Curse you I say), or Scully or Zoe, or Chrichton or Mitchell or D'Argo or Teal'c or hell, even Mulder once upon a time, or Miles, or Peter Wimsey, or Harriet or any of them, is that they strive. They don't sit idly by, the participate, they fail and fall and break and break each other, but god, they participate. When it's over, I may hurt because they failed, may feel my heart break for them, but it doesn't take me into that self-reflective self-loathing fear, because no matter what, these are people who reached.
And at the end, I hated Lee Fiora because she never, ever reached for anything worth having. Because Cross? Wasn't. Would never be and she always knew that.
In other words, reading that damned book, Prep set me off on a night long consideration of narration and character and media and fortunately a good night sleep helped me bleed off the cranky because upon finishing the book, I was angry and upset and teary, and trust me. It's just not that kind of book.
I know, in part, that it's because I related too strongly to the main character and her situation, in part because of my experience going to Bennington, in part because of my high school experience.
I get both the need to not be seen, to keep saying no to overtures of friendship because you can't imagine that they're genuine, and the way of watching, observing without every quite saying what you mean, of categorizing people and being baffled when their lives somehow seem both more and less than they should be. The thing is, even as someone without money or particular beauty, I was never afraid to use what I had, unlike the main character Lee Fiora. I knew I was smart, and I was quick, and while I was desperately afraid of people, I wasn't afraid of learning, and I wasn't afraid to do new things. I engaged in my surroundings because I knew I had to. In part, so I could escape high school. One of the biggest shocks of my life was that college - socially - wasn't as different as I'd hoped. Instead, it presented an entirely new set of social hierarchies that I wasn't capable of navigating due to my own... lack of whatever. And yet, even there, I engaged. I studied, I learned, I joined things, I participated. I may have been lonely, but I wasn't... absent.
So at the end of Prep, more than anything, I was angry with Lee. For never figuring it out unti it was too late, for still finding an exhileration in her distance and absence and for the way she treasured loving this guy over anything else that she could have done with her time or her talents. (And okay, I also never bought that she was smart enough to get into and stay at Ault. The one mis-step in Sittenfeld's portrait is in showing Lee as a lackluster student at best. She's observant, is able to draw conclusions about people, but really, she never comes of as smart. And she should have. Her lack of ambition should have felt like more of a disconnect. Her teachers and the Dean should have picked up on it sooner.)
Regardless, when I finished the novel, and I think this is a testament to Sittenfeld's skill although I don't think I could read another of her books, I felt - viscerally felt - like I'd made the same choices as Lee, had ended up in the same distant, lost void. But the thing is, I didn't. I made better choices, used my intelligence and my talents, got myself to places where they were valued and eventually learned to make, and trust the making of, good friends. So how come I was distraught instead of elated that my real life had turned out better than this character's?
Obviously, we draw associations between characters and self. It's the whole reason we consume media of any kind - books, movies, tv, anime, etc. But what's fascinating is how those associations track, how we connect, and on what levels. I'm not just talking fannish adoration or connection, but those personal ley lines that we draw, that frequently result in more irrational reactions to how those characters are portrayed both in the original text and in derivative reactions (and by portrayed, I mean treated by everyone except the actor, who has ownership in an entirely different way). I think that's why, as fandoms, we react particularly strongly to characters like House, or Rodney McKay or Miles Vorkosigan - characters who are prickly and tricky and can be a giant pain in the ass but who seem tailored to our own personalities and reactions. Who have physical limitations or character flaws that we can relate to. And we tend to get defensive on their behalves, even when the characters themselves don't quite deserve it.
I admit to the same perversity. There are authors who I don't read because I dislike their characterizations of Aeryn. It's rarely something largely, but it's frequently something specific. I'm getting the same way with SG-1. I won't read anyone who makes the Daniel/Vala relationship something simpering or smacking of true love. I want the back and forth, the con and the play and the unexpected moments of understanding. And unless it's hot (or with Teal'c, or part of a threesome), I don't read Mitchell slash because that character doesn't track for me this way.
And much of that is because of things that I see in the characters that draw me in. I imprinted on Aeryn, and Scully, and maybe, just a little, on Zoe, because for the most part, all three of these women have reservoirs of strength that serve them absolutely. When they break, the audience breaks because their strength is intrinsic. And by strength here, I mean a stoicism, a fundamental belief in self and reason and order. And my reactions are personal to them. I still think it was a cheap shot to kill Wash because he gave something to Zoe that she didn't have before. I don't think his death served the story. I still think Simon's death would have served it better, and sure that's a personal preference, but it also strikes me as right. YMMV. But my connection to these characters comes from admiration, from joy, but also from things I either want to see in myself, hope to see in myself, or do see in myself. It's why their losses hurt so badly as well. (And yes, the double entrede stands - losses as in the things they lose, and losses as in the loss of them to the viewer).
What makes the characters I love - whether it be Vala, or Aeryn or both the 9th and 10th Doctors (curse you Liz!! Curse you I say), or Scully or Zoe, or Chrichton or Mitchell or D'Argo or Teal'c or hell, even Mulder once upon a time, or Miles, or Peter Wimsey, or Harriet or any of them, is that they strive. They don't sit idly by, the participate, they fail and fall and break and break each other, but god, they participate. When it's over, I may hurt because they failed, may feel my heart break for them, but it doesn't take me into that self-reflective self-loathing fear, because no matter what, these are people who reached.
And at the end, I hated Lee Fiora because she never, ever reached for anything worth having. Because Cross? Wasn't. Would never be and she always knew that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:23 am (UTC)Is it?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 05:42 am (UTC)Again, doesn't mean I'm right. Just means that it's the lens through which I interpret other people's media consumption. It's not the only reason:) Even I'm not arrogant enough to make that assumption:)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 06:39 am (UTC)characters appeal or don't, music strikes or doesn't. of course, the things that touch deeply, and typically this is almost exclusively to music for me, are because i can somehow relate to any given piece, but again, that's rare.
i'm a surface consumer. it's got to be something i perceive as bloody brilliant before i'll go any deeper. and honestly, 7 to 8 times out of 10 it's because of what's there already that has nothing to do with me, not what i think i see reflected back.
it's the ideas that appeal to me, in and of themselves, precisely because they are someone else's and i find them fascinating.
a few examples right off the top of my head:
BSG - good character and compelling story. not my world. don't see it as allegorical for such.
Supernatural - good character. creepy brilliant stories. so not my world. don't see me anywhere in it.
SGA/SG-1 - fun, fluff, goofy entertainment. sometimes dark and compelling. no parallels, no allegories. not my world.
JD Robb's Eve Dallas series - funny as fuck. gets the cop world right. i *can* relate to Eve but it's not what drew me to the world. the snark, solidly told mysteries and the characters did. i don't read the "In Death" stories and go, ohshe'ssome. i just devour them and giggle.
maybe that makes me shallow, or a bad consumer or something. i dunno. but i'm not looking for me out there. i *know* me. i'm looking for what isn't me.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:38 am (UTC)Heh! I feel bad because I keep popping up every time anyone talks about Prep to chime in with a little hatred :P
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 05:30 am (UTC)And yeah, she could have left, and I understood her father's sense of betrayal at the end and wish they would have played that up instead of chalking her selfishness up to her being an adolescent, instead of trying to justify why she felt compelled to stay (and yeah, I know a lot of that was Cross, but it just... argh, didn't her parents ever look at her grades and say, "Okay, I think you're wasting our money."
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 05:25 am (UTC)Loves you.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-16 02:08 pm (UTC)I hear you. So very yes.
It's one reason why I loved Spike beyond reason: He didn't just strive; he reached for something that was inherently out of his grasp, something that was, by all means, impossible to obtain. That he rose above his nature to be the man he wanted to be because Buffy wanted him to be that man -- I love it. To this day, I think his is the most amazing character story of BtVS.