lookingland (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lookingland) wrote2007-04-12 02:37 pm
lookingland) wrote2007-04-12 02:37 pm
Entry tags:
vile villainy vilified violently ~
i'm not dead ~ just really busy as the semester winds down (projects, job stuff, etc.).
the![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
writers_five question this week was about villains, but i've always said that i don't really have villains per se (antagonists, yes, but they're never primary "foes"). and someone there responded with the axiom that everyone is a hero in their own story. well, conversely in my world, everyone is a villain in their own story.
i wanted to ramble on some thoughts about the series Smallville (i just finished season two). this is a natural segueway from "villains" because the most interesting thing on the show is the villainous Lex Luthor. i really like lex in the series and i think his inner struggle is interesting (he outshines clark as a character of interest most of the time).
i've always been a big fan of Superman. i think the show tries to stay faithful to the icon, but the second season emphasis on "destiny" could bore tuber eyes to tears. it sorta robs the mythos of the whole American ideal (what the heck happened to free will?). and i'm really tired of people treating lex bad for no real reason at all (i hate to say it, but i'll be glad when jonathan kent bites the dust, he's obnoxious).
i was so happy and sad to see Christopher Reeve in his brightly shining cameo, but otherwise the show is getting lame. i'll try to press through season three, but between the continuity problems, the infuriating lack of character logic, and the current blah-arc, i feel like this one's days are numbered for me. it's unavoisable that lex and clark will become enemies, but i don't really feel the writers are strong enough to motivate this in a way that will be satisfying and maintain the compelling nature of lex, so i feel like when it happens, i'll prolly lose interest in the show altogether. tom wellington is well-cast as clark, even if he is dull.
lex is by far the more interesting of the two.
i had lots else to say, but eh ~ i'll spare you.
file this under: really idiotic response to a writing board request ~
let's parse, shall we?
respondant displays their "global" knowledge by clarifying for all that not just America had a civil war (congratulations, the girl specified which civil war she wanted information about ~ read the post and stop being so smug ~ not to mention grammatically incompetent).
and then there's Shelby Foote. yes, the definite writer of Civil War history. now i think i'm pretty darn geeky when it comes to reading and the Civil War (you on my flist know this first hand), but not even i have ploughed through all three massive mammoth monstrous volumes of foote's magnum opus. in truth, i think few people have. i'm not saying a 16 year-old girl couldn't undertake the task, but first off, that's no way to introduce the topic to someone who knows absolutely nothing, and secondly, c'mon, what 16 year old girl is going to read 3,000 pages just to write a story that is clearly just an idea in her head at this point? i wouldn't. would you?
the respondant goes on to recommend some irrelevant regimental history of a unit from the wrong state (to further impress us with their vast knowledge, i suppose).
i didn't bother saying a word to any of this, but i'm going to say plenty here. not because i'm "safe" from the poster, but because going into all of this on the board would be pointless. last time i opened my fingers in a thread over there, i had someone screaming in my face that margaret mitchell was a racist and that i didn't know the first thing about the war. this was in a thread in which the poster was asking about southern etiquette ~ had nothing to do with slavery at all, but the respondant was determined to turn it toward their agenda. (and if you can imagine me defending margaret mitchell, well that says it all). anyway, that's not why i'm belaboring this.
here's the thing:
i'm not an expert. i think i am generally well-read on some very very specific subjects of the war (prisons, hospitals [i forced myself to learn how to spell Chimborazo this week ~ big victory], period customs, clothing, and language, the broad view of the ANV, Antietam [another word i had a problem learning to spell ~ have i mentioned i'm dyslexic?], Cedar Mountain, the Lincoln assassination, and the ordinary life of johnny and billy in the field).
i don't pretend to know jack-all about the army of the potomoc (that doesn't look right ~ can i even spell potomac?, most of the major campaigns from the top down, battle tactic minutiae, famous generals, politicians, etc. etc. etc. in other words, the stuff that most people do tend to know when they are fans of this era.
but i also know where to go to get the information and don't mind digging for other people because i invariably learn cool stuff for myself. so i just wanted to vent that, but mostly to say: if someone asks me for information, advice, or recommendations, i inform, advise, and recommend based on the needs of the person asking, not based on my personal biases or agendas or to show how wonderfully astute i am. i despise revisionist history/fiction and tell people when sources are slanted one way or another or if i think some work is academic or theoretical or conjectural (the lincoln assassination writers are big on this). i try to recommend works that are primary sources with notes or show strong scholarship and/or are respected in the field. i recommend fiction that doesn't pander to 20th (or 21st) century sensibilities (which is getting to be pretty rare in my experience).
anyway, the point is to help someone gain some knowledge or insight in an expedient manner, focusing on what they need. what i wouldn't have given at 16 to have been able to go onto a board and ask questions and get useful, precise information or recommendations. so maybe i just hate it a little too much when people are showing themselves as "experts" and just blithering on about stuff that's not really helpful at all.
maybe this is the thing that convinced me that i belong working in the library.
see? the story had a happy ending.
i was going to f-lock this post on the chance that people from that board might see themselves here, but i've decided i don't care.
anyway, back to other things:
re: villains
so i tried to pick a "villain" to answer the questions, but as near as i could come to one would be Captain Kale Porter (all my "bad" guys have stupid names ~ it's the easiest way to recognize them in any story i write).
1 - What is your villain's main pet peeve?
social climbers, the whole ridiculous idea of "promotion by merit" and/or promotion by popularity (whichever one disagrees with him on a given day). every spiteful thing he does comes from this peeve.
2 - What is the most depraved thing your villain has ever done?
i think sending the protagonist to jail under deliberately misguided pretexts is pretty villainous, though i'm not sure he has any idea how depraved that decision will turn out (and in all fairness, James shares the blame on this one). i don't think porter's depraved, really. just snotty.
3 - What is a redeeming quality your villain has? (if any)
he's probably good at what he does, generally. if he wasn't, James would have gotten rid of him sooner than he does (sadly i have lost the draft in which they get him stinkin' drunk, shave him bald ~ save one large curl on his forehead ~ and send him back to his camp on a donkey wearing nothing but a diaper. rewriting that one's gonna be a doozy).
4 - Does your villain think he's evil?
certainly not. he's the creme de la creme of berkley county!
5 - What is your villain's justification?
he's better than everybody else (his blood is bluer, he's got a pedigree, so he should have special privileges). and he's also an officer and knows everything about everything, so everyone should listen to him. if they'd just put him in charge of the army, he could win the war in a week.
the
writers_five question this week was about villains, but i've always said that i don't really have villains per se (antagonists, yes, but they're never primary "foes"). and someone there responded with the axiom that everyone is a hero in their own story. well, conversely in my world, everyone is a villain in their own story. i wanted to ramble on some thoughts about the series Smallville (i just finished season two). this is a natural segueway from "villains" because the most interesting thing on the show is the villainous Lex Luthor. i really like lex in the series and i think his inner struggle is interesting (he outshines clark as a character of interest most of the time).
i've always been a big fan of Superman. i think the show tries to stay faithful to the icon, but the second season emphasis on "destiny" could bore tuber eyes to tears. it sorta robs the mythos of the whole American ideal (what the heck happened to free will?). and i'm really tired of people treating lex bad for no real reason at all (i hate to say it, but i'll be glad when jonathan kent bites the dust, he's obnoxious).
i was so happy and sad to see Christopher Reeve in his brightly shining cameo, but otherwise the show is getting lame. i'll try to press through season three, but between the continuity problems, the infuriating lack of character logic, and the current blah-arc, i feel like this one's days are numbered for me. it's unavoisable that lex and clark will become enemies, but i don't really feel the writers are strong enough to motivate this in a way that will be satisfying and maintain the compelling nature of lex, so i feel like when it happens, i'll prolly lose interest in the show altogether. tom wellington is well-cast as clark, even if he is dull.
lex is by far the more interesting of the two.
i had lots else to say, but eh ~ i'll spare you.
file this under: really idiotic response to a writing board request ~
How much do you need to know about the American Civil War (yes, other countries have had civil wars, too)? You might start with Shelby Foote's definitive history of the Civil War in three large volumes.this, in response to a 16 year-old girl's request for information on the "Civil War era of America".
let's parse, shall we?
respondant displays their "global" knowledge by clarifying for all that not just America had a civil war (congratulations, the girl specified which civil war she wanted information about ~ read the post and stop being so smug ~ not to mention grammatically incompetent).
and then there's Shelby Foote. yes, the definite writer of Civil War history. now i think i'm pretty darn geeky when it comes to reading and the Civil War (you on my flist know this first hand), but not even i have ploughed through all three massive mammoth monstrous volumes of foote's magnum opus. in truth, i think few people have. i'm not saying a 16 year-old girl couldn't undertake the task, but first off, that's no way to introduce the topic to someone who knows absolutely nothing, and secondly, c'mon, what 16 year old girl is going to read 3,000 pages just to write a story that is clearly just an idea in her head at this point? i wouldn't. would you?
the respondant goes on to recommend some irrelevant regimental history of a unit from the wrong state (to further impress us with their vast knowledge, i suppose).
i didn't bother saying a word to any of this, but i'm going to say plenty here. not because i'm "safe" from the poster, but because going into all of this on the board would be pointless. last time i opened my fingers in a thread over there, i had someone screaming in my face that margaret mitchell was a racist and that i didn't know the first thing about the war. this was in a thread in which the poster was asking about southern etiquette ~ had nothing to do with slavery at all, but the respondant was determined to turn it toward their agenda. (and if you can imagine me defending margaret mitchell, well that says it all). anyway, that's not why i'm belaboring this.
here's the thing:
i'm not an expert. i think i am generally well-read on some very very specific subjects of the war (prisons, hospitals [i forced myself to learn how to spell Chimborazo this week ~ big victory], period customs, clothing, and language, the broad view of the ANV, Antietam [another word i had a problem learning to spell ~ have i mentioned i'm dyslexic?], Cedar Mountain, the Lincoln assassination, and the ordinary life of johnny and billy in the field).
i don't pretend to know jack-all about the army of the potomoc (that doesn't look right ~ can i even spell potomac?, most of the major campaigns from the top down, battle tactic minutiae, famous generals, politicians, etc. etc. etc. in other words, the stuff that most people do tend to know when they are fans of this era.
but i also know where to go to get the information and don't mind digging for other people because i invariably learn cool stuff for myself. so i just wanted to vent that, but mostly to say: if someone asks me for information, advice, or recommendations, i inform, advise, and recommend based on the needs of the person asking, not based on my personal biases or agendas or to show how wonderfully astute i am. i despise revisionist history/fiction and tell people when sources are slanted one way or another or if i think some work is academic or theoretical or conjectural (the lincoln assassination writers are big on this). i try to recommend works that are primary sources with notes or show strong scholarship and/or are respected in the field. i recommend fiction that doesn't pander to 20th (or 21st) century sensibilities (which is getting to be pretty rare in my experience).
anyway, the point is to help someone gain some knowledge or insight in an expedient manner, focusing on what they need. what i wouldn't have given at 16 to have been able to go onto a board and ask questions and get useful, precise information or recommendations. so maybe i just hate it a little too much when people are showing themselves as "experts" and just blithering on about stuff that's not really helpful at all.
maybe this is the thing that convinced me that i belong working in the library.
see? the story had a happy ending.
i was going to f-lock this post on the chance that people from that board might see themselves here, but i've decided i don't care.
anyway, back to other things:
re: villains
so i tried to pick a "villain" to answer the questions, but as near as i could come to one would be Captain Kale Porter (all my "bad" guys have stupid names ~ it's the easiest way to recognize them in any story i write).
1 - What is your villain's main pet peeve?
social climbers, the whole ridiculous idea of "promotion by merit" and/or promotion by popularity (whichever one disagrees with him on a given day). every spiteful thing he does comes from this peeve.
2 - What is the most depraved thing your villain has ever done?
i think sending the protagonist to jail under deliberately misguided pretexts is pretty villainous, though i'm not sure he has any idea how depraved that decision will turn out (and in all fairness, James shares the blame on this one). i don't think porter's depraved, really. just snotty.
3 - What is a redeeming quality your villain has? (if any)
he's probably good at what he does, generally. if he wasn't, James would have gotten rid of him sooner than he does (sadly i have lost the draft in which they get him stinkin' drunk, shave him bald ~ save one large curl on his forehead ~ and send him back to his camp on a donkey wearing nothing but a diaper. rewriting that one's gonna be a doozy).
4 - Does your villain think he's evil?
certainly not. he's the creme de la creme of berkley county!
5 - What is your villain's justification?
he's better than everybody else (his blood is bluer, he's got a pedigree, so he should have special privileges). and he's also an officer and knows everything about everything, so everyone should listen to him. if they'd just put him in charge of the army, he could win the war in a week.
no subject
And from the sounds of it, yeah, that poster had either an agenda, or was trying to show off their 'vast' knowledge.
I've never watched Smallville - couldn't bring myself to watch a series about Superman, a superhero that I really loathe. Your review isn't exactly making me feel any desire to catch up to it now. ;)
no subject
i guess i just don't see the world in that sort of pro-ant way either.
and yeah, you won't miss anything if you skip Smallville, especially if you're not fond of Superman to begin with (who doesn't love Superman????) ~ hahahahahaha.
: D
no subject
I love Smallville. But I agree with you about season 2 and with everything you have to say about Lex. I adore Lex. His character is by far the most multifaceted on the show. I've always wanted to do a research paper on Lex's psychological profile for no reason other than he fascinates me. As much as I love Clark (cause duh, he's superman), Lex is much more interesting. (I love Jonathan Kent just because it's Bo Duke! But he does get annoying, especially where Lex is concerned.)
In season 5 there is an episode I think you'll really like. It's all about Lex and it's my favorite episode ever. The twist at the end really gets me. It's a great look into his mind. I happen to have it on my computer if you want to see it I can upload it for you. But if you want to catch up on seasons 3 & 4 first, I understand. This episode (5x09) does have a couple of small spoilers. But nothing too integral if I remember correctly.
no subject
i wish i liked jonathan more, but the things they have his character say and do are something just idiotic ~ and why is always working on that stupid combine? in two seasons he hasn't fixed it yet ~ but okay, now i'm just picking on the ridiculous pseudo-farming that the kents allegedly do. hahahahahaha ~
i meant to tell you also that i love all the icon you did! i'm so behind on responding to my flist, but i did have a chance to peruse the cool stuff that you made ~ nice work!
: D
no subject
Yes, I know what you mean about the alleged farming. *LOL* But I guess if they did a lot of farming, the show would be to boring to bother with. :) Season 5 was a good season. Try to stick it out. Season 4 was good, but I really hate Lois Lane. Maybe that makes me a bad Superman fan, but in the series she's so damn annoying.
Thanks for the kind comment on my icons. :) I'm glad you like them. They are so much fun to make.
no subject
lex just got put in the boob house ~ so i'm stuck watching to see at least until he gets out. the show may hold me yet.
: D
no subject
no subject
hahahahaha ~
: D
no subject
I grabbed on about halfway through season 1 and, like you, started to grow disappointed by the end of season 2 and for the same reasons. I loved the slow collision and the set-ups and good old-fashioned "plants and pointers". But it didn't really live up to its potential. There was a time when I was really gripped to that series and unironically couldn't wait to see what happened next (and, more to the point, what happened next to Lex Luthor). Now it's pretty much unwatchable.
no subject
the honeymoon is about over for me on this. i would still recommend to my brother to see the Christopher Reeve episode, but i would have a hard time recommending the whole show.
: o p
no subject
Superman? Superdoofus more like...
no subject
i think both girls are cute-looking, but personality wise i'm not sure why anybody would want either of them. lana is a weepy dishrag and chloe is whatever convenient foil the plot needs in a given moment to generate some lame emotional drama (i'm perky! i'm angry! i'm sad! i'm witty! i'm funny! i'm serious!). as a blatant stand-in for the eventuality of lois lane, she's a pretty useless character.
: o p
no subject
no subject
maybe you should also join
or you can get them from me ~ either way! glad they got your head turned!
: D
no subject
And on an interesting entry too. I watched a few episodes of Smallville, and needless to say, the idiocy of Clark drives me crazy. Sometimes he makes the stupidest choices and I just want to whack him upside the head. I stopped watching for it just lost its appeal, plus I didn't really like Superman to begin with - how ironic that despite my dislike of the superhero, Lex's character drew me in, but it was superman that destroyed the show for me.
Normally I'm more fascinated with the heros and how they interact with the villains, but sometimes I come across a great show and/or book that has a wonderfully multi-facet villain that just piques my interest. Those are rare, but so delicious when found.
Your questions have gotten me interested in examining my own villains. I'm sure they could use some work.