I think for someone who does not care much about people in general, I find myself rather concerned with everyone around me.
I think I'm learning how to deal with people better and better everyday. I think I've grown to understand how the general normal thought process works, though I get the occasional curve ball thrown at me. Considering I at one time could not deal with anyone at all, ever, this is a rather grand leap.
Understandably, everyone reaches out to touch, to connect, to feel like someone is listening. Everyone, even I, desire an outside connection. It is an ingrained physical need. We are damaged mentally without those connections.
I've experimented at work with an interesting concept. Mirror neurons in a person's brain cause people to mimic the emotions another person exhibits. If someone else smiles, you will smile in return most of the time, as long as you are in a neutral or happy mood. Even in a poor mood, you are compelled to respond with a smile. My own mirror responses are repaired enough that I react appropriately now, but I'm still able to reteach myself to not respond in the proper manner.
Namely, not smiling when someone smiles at me. Children with autism, or emotionally damaged people often don't respond with a smile when one is offered. Sometimes, such as with autistics, they are simply unable to comprehend the emotion. Someone with some level of sociopathy, as I had at one point, is able to understand and imitate the emotion, but can just as easily choose not to do it. Naturally, a normal thinking person will find this disturbing.
Connected with this is the pleasent tone of voice. Children learn music, in a way, before anything else. The sing-song voice delegated to babies, pets and idiots is meant to soothe (or in the last case, patronize) a person's anxiety. A person will react positively, most of the time, to that soothing, melodic voice tone. With this cheery tone, people know that you are in a good mood. I've greeted many customers with this sing song, cheery tone only to receive blank stares or even glares back.
Now you know why I decided on this experiment. The experiment is to greet in the same cheery tone without the cheery expression. Apparently, this is very confusing to some people. While often people will declare a great amount of frustration with a smile and happy tone, it is not often that a person will greet another with a bright tone without even the hint of a smile. A person is compelled to match their expression with their voices, so its difficult to resist smiling when you can hear yourself sound so cheerful.
The most this experiment has rendered is that people are going to react to a pleasent tone no matter what your expression is, but usually become confused as to why you aren't smiling. This leads to inquiery on your emotional state. Its rather fun, in the end, though I reccommend to anyone dealing with the public to try and smile and bear with it.
People have that habit of wanting to connect to their cashier. If its not connecting with them, then it is treating them like lesser beings. I'm still unsure as to which one annoys me more. I'm tempted to charge a co-pay with how much therapy I'm apparently expected to give, though on the other hand, I really hate being treated as a slave. I do believe that both these urges are perfectly natural.
We want someone to care, so we tell even strangers everything. Otherwise, we want someone that reminds us of how good we have it, so we spit on the people that we can. Anything that results in some kind of connection, and depending on your own personality, it can be positive or negative.
Either way, I am a strange person. I would rather not have any of that unless I pursue it myself, particularly of the negative. I won't smile when I sound cheerful, and I cry when people try to cheer me up. I'm an emotional person living under a self enforced pressure of logical thinking. I think, most of all, I want to catch up to everyone else, because I'm so very behind. Excuse any odd behavior, and be sure to let me know if I'm making mistakes.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
A little Wiki this evening.
- Complext Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD)
- Child/Adolescent Cluster
- 1. Attachment - "problems with relationship boundaries, lack of trust, social isolation, difficulty perceiving and responding to other’s emotional states, and lack of empathy"
- 2. Biology - "sensory-motor developmental dysfunction, sensory-integration difficulties, somatization, and increased medical problems"
- 3. Affect or emotional regulation - "poor affect regulation, difficulty identifying and expressing emotions and internal states, and difficulties communicating needs, wants, and wishes"
- 4. Dissociation - "amnesia, depersonalization, discrete states of consciousness with discrete memories, affect, and functioning, and impaired memory for state-based events"
- 5. Behavioural control - "problems with impulse control, aggression, pathological self-soothing, and sleep problems"
- 6. Cognition - "difficulty regulating attention, problems with a variety of “executive functions” such as planning, judgement, initiation, use of materials, and self- monitoring, difficulty processing new information, difficulty focusing and completing tasks, poor object constancy, problems with “cause-effect” thinking, and language developmental problems such as a gap between receptive and expressive communication abilities."
- 7. Self-concept -"fragmented and disconnected autobiographical narrative, disturbed body image, low self-esteem, excessive shame, and negative internal working models of self"
-
- Difficulties regulating emotions, including symptoms such as persistent sadness, suicidal thoughts, explosive anger, or covert anger
-
- Variations in consciousness, such as forgetting traumatic events, reliving traumatic events, or having episodes of dissociation (during which one feels detached from one's mental processes or body)
-
- Changes in self-perception, such as a sense of helplessness, shame, guilt, stigma, and a sense of being completely different from other human beings
-
- Varied changes in the perception of the perpetrator, such as attributing total power to the perpetrator or becoming preoccupied with the relationship to the perpetrator, including a preoccupation with revenge
-
- Alterations in relations with others, including isolation, distrust, or a repeated search for a rescuer.
-
- Loss of, or changes in, one's system of meanings, which may include a loss of sustaining faith or a sense of hopelessness and despair
- A. Exposure to a traumatic event
- B. Persistent reexperience (e.g. flashbacks, nightmares)
- C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things even related to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions that trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms fear of losing control)
- D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance)
- E. Duration of symptoms more than 1 month
- F. Significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g. problems with work and relationships.)
Just small, bulleted portions of a Wikipedia article I've been reading while listening to bit of Brideshead Revisited soundtrack. I felt rather compelled this evening.
Really, I'll be honest, I'm trying to convince myself that I really do have a right to feel the way I do sometimes. That it isn't something so completely abnormal. Lately its been a consistent roller coaster, where I can almost put a clock to when I'll start feeling poorly. It doesn't really help that I have PMDD either, but I'm not going to listen the symptoms for that.
The point is is that as much as I want to portray myself as a normal, sane human being, when it comes right down to it, I'm really not. I want to be, most certainly, but on the other hand I'm happy with what I have. I can't be happy with what I have all the time, but even for little bits, its nice.
Another reason for posting it is because I feel that some people don't really get it. That they haven' taken the time to actually understand that the steps I've made are phenomenal. If they do understand, I certainly haven't seen it.
To the technical, I was technically diagnosed with late onset PTSD, not C-PTSD, though I relate to the adult cluster greatly. At least lately I've been relating to to it. I can read those lines and go Yes, I do feel that way. Someone did find words for it, for me and anyone else who can't find the right words for it.
I can't fix myself. I can get better over time, but I can't wave a wand and make it all better. I can't force it either. Sure, at work, I can fake it, but once I get home I fall into such horrible fits. I have people at work that like me for what I could be and what I can show that I can be, when I try. I don't want them to see that I can't always be that. I have friends who have known me longer and seen the parts that are underlying, and I can't stand that they've seen it sometimes. I have family that can tell me exactly how I was years ago, and it makes me sick to my stomach that I was worse than I am now, though happy that I'm better.
But back then I didn't care how bad I was. Now I do, and I think thats worse. I'm more aware of everything. I can feel things properly, though I can't process them all that well. I ramble and babble, and make stupid comments that I have to back track and correct. I'm still a chronic lier, though I don't mean to be. I just don't think I'm all that interesting of a person. I savor times inside a car because I can just rant and vent and make myself feel better for a little while, but I can't always be in a car. I can't always rely on my mom, and have already had it proven to me that I can't rely on my brother. Of course, that makes me more clingy to my mom.
Its not to say that I haven't found people to rely on. I have friends at work who helped me when my grandpa died, and I have friends scattered all over that do what they can to make me feel a little more human and a little more normal. I feel more comfortable meeting new people, and I'm learning to control what I say. I'm learning that I can say things that are funny, and people do enjoy my company, even if I'm a little weird.
Despite having those connections, I find that I enjoy being shallow. I like talking about movies and books, and discussing things, but its all still shallow. I like people at their proper distance, because any deeper and they can see that I'm not right. I'm disconnected, and that makes me happy. I'm safe, with my very tiny circle of people I've let in. I'm easily slighted, and I hold those grudges because I need to be safe more than I need to have a friend. Its not fair to other people, but I'm a selfish person. I'm so selfish that I feel entitled to being selfish. I'm actually rather arrogant as well. Arrogant, haughty, selfish, and self centered.
My distance needs to be maintained, until a natural flow can occur. My closest friends are the ones who've allowed me to do things on my own time, in my own way. Ones who don't push and prod and pick me apart. I need that, more than anything. I need people to allow me to be shallow and frivilous, and never talk about anything of importance unless I really want to. Unless it occurs naturally. I can't handle people reminding me of the important topics when I'm trying to pull the reins in my head and bring everything back into its corrals.
Most of all, I need to be left alone. Left alone to my own devices. I get so angry that I scream and rant and snap over the tiniest things, but its better for me to do it that way than let it build until I explode and fall apart. I get bristly and closed off, wanting nothing to do with anyone for awhile, to the point where I'll yell at my own monitor even though they can't hear me. Those are times I need to be left alone. I'll come out of my hole sooner or later, and be better for it.
Just stop rushing me.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Free Food Effect
The Free Food effect is a phenomenon that occurs when one person takes the first step, which leads to an avalanche of people.
Whenever you see free food left for a group of people, many times no one will go near it until the first person takes the plunge and takes something from the plate. The same effect happens at grocery stores and other places of retail. The entire building can seem devoid of people, until one person steps up to the counter. Like cockroaches, people crawl out of the wood works, causing a massive pile up.
This leads to impatience and irritation, but one has to wonder why this happens, almost every time. Its either a coincidence of timing (everyone happens to be at the same place at the same time requiring the same service), the same line of thinking (everyone believing everyone else won't be there, so its a good time to go) or evil government plotting (Big Brother is watching you)
Not to sound paranoid, but I'm going with the third option. More research needs to be put into this. Someone needs to take that first step, and I'm sure within a week it will have its very own scientific name and Wikipedia article. Free Food effect in full effect.
This particularly line of thought is dedicated to Proper Cathy. No, you still can't use it for a college thesis.
Whenever you see free food left for a group of people, many times no one will go near it until the first person takes the plunge and takes something from the plate. The same effect happens at grocery stores and other places of retail. The entire building can seem devoid of people, until one person steps up to the counter. Like cockroaches, people crawl out of the wood works, causing a massive pile up.
This leads to impatience and irritation, but one has to wonder why this happens, almost every time. Its either a coincidence of timing (everyone happens to be at the same place at the same time requiring the same service), the same line of thinking (everyone believing everyone else won't be there, so its a good time to go) or evil government plotting (Big Brother is watching you)
Not to sound paranoid, but I'm going with the third option. More research needs to be put into this. Someone needs to take that first step, and I'm sure within a week it will have its very own scientific name and Wikipedia article. Free Food effect in full effect.
This particularly line of thought is dedicated to Proper Cathy. No, you still can't use it for a college thesis.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Watchmen vs Batman
Recently I saw, then subsequently read Watchmen. Short history, its the most acclaimed graphic novel in the history of the US, one of Times 100 best, and was recently crafted into an excellent film.
As I'm waiting for my chance to spring this movie upon my mother, whom I'm very sure will appreciate it, I'm rewatching the trailers. Oh, those delicious trailers, even those are finely crafted. I was reading through a few comments, and found myself.... again appalled by some people.
Watchmen vs The Dark Knight seems to be a common battle on the internet these days. The main battle consists of which film is more enjoyable, on varying levels. I loved both films, so I decided to state my opinion on which one I think would win in this little battle...
Easily. Watchmen.
Then again, both films are different from each other. Oh, but they're both superhero flicks, aren't they? That's part of them, but they are still two very different types of film.
The Dark Knight is pure Batman, obviously. Not just the character, but the concept. That dark vigilante avenger... but still with a very cut and dry showing of good versus evil. I believe they did a fine job in making the characters more ambiguous with their desires, more grey than black and white, but it is still a very basic good vs evil.
Watchmen is pure... something else. It has a stronger HUMAN feeling to it. It's purpose was to explore a possibility (Superheros in our world) and I think it did very well with that. No character is purely good or purely evil, or even that light grey that appears in Batman. In fact, many actions of the good guys can be considered horribly appalling. While I believe that extremes were shown in this film quite often (The novel showed more subtle aspects) I do believe it paints a fine picture of human nature, and how people respond to certain social stimulus.
The two films are simply incomparable. We will naturally be drawn to The Dark Knight, as its more of a fantasy. Batman has swooped in and saved the day. Some people hate him, but the majority love him for all he does for Gotham. Watchmen causes us to balk, and turn our eyes away, as we are unwilling to see the dirt of our own society, even within a fantasy world. Movies are meant to take us away from those terrible things, and give us a world as it should be, where the good guy always win. Its why we watch them, to break away.
Movies such as Watchmen instead show us the things we despise the most about ourselves and our society. It presents to us things that could happen in such a raw, painful manner. In short, I think it makes us ashamed, so we choose to hate it.
You simply cannot compare human society of fantasy with human society of reality. Not everyone will understand, or appreciate it, for a variety of reasons, but both of these films will remain as two of my favorites, fanciful stories reflecting human nature at its finest and at its worst. Watchmen will simply fall higher on that list than The Dark Knight.
As I'm waiting for my chance to spring this movie upon my mother, whom I'm very sure will appreciate it, I'm rewatching the trailers. Oh, those delicious trailers, even those are finely crafted. I was reading through a few comments, and found myself.... again appalled by some people.
Watchmen vs The Dark Knight seems to be a common battle on the internet these days. The main battle consists of which film is more enjoyable, on varying levels. I loved both films, so I decided to state my opinion on which one I think would win in this little battle...
Easily. Watchmen.
Then again, both films are different from each other. Oh, but they're both superhero flicks, aren't they? That's part of them, but they are still two very different types of film.
The Dark Knight is pure Batman, obviously. Not just the character, but the concept. That dark vigilante avenger... but still with a very cut and dry showing of good versus evil. I believe they did a fine job in making the characters more ambiguous with their desires, more grey than black and white, but it is still a very basic good vs evil.
Watchmen is pure... something else. It has a stronger HUMAN feeling to it. It's purpose was to explore a possibility (Superheros in our world) and I think it did very well with that. No character is purely good or purely evil, or even that light grey that appears in Batman. In fact, many actions of the good guys can be considered horribly appalling. While I believe that extremes were shown in this film quite often (The novel showed more subtle aspects) I do believe it paints a fine picture of human nature, and how people respond to certain social stimulus.
The two films are simply incomparable. We will naturally be drawn to The Dark Knight, as its more of a fantasy. Batman has swooped in and saved the day. Some people hate him, but the majority love him for all he does for Gotham. Watchmen causes us to balk, and turn our eyes away, as we are unwilling to see the dirt of our own society, even within a fantasy world. Movies are meant to take us away from those terrible things, and give us a world as it should be, where the good guy always win. Its why we watch them, to break away.
Movies such as Watchmen instead show us the things we despise the most about ourselves and our society. It presents to us things that could happen in such a raw, painful manner. In short, I think it makes us ashamed, so we choose to hate it.
You simply cannot compare human society of fantasy with human society of reality. Not everyone will understand, or appreciate it, for a variety of reasons, but both of these films will remain as two of my favorites, fanciful stories reflecting human nature at its finest and at its worst. Watchmen will simply fall higher on that list than The Dark Knight.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Wasted Television
Paralleling a little bit on the television theme, and involving some plugs from my favorite shows.
Perhaps its a bit selfish of anyone to nitpick on writers of television, particularly if your nitpick is "I could do this better". I often respond to this with put up or shut up, and at times am usually faced with what the world fondly calls 'fan fiction.' I've been pleasantly surprised to see that many times the fan fiction rivals or surpasses the writing on the show.
A painful example of this comes from one of my favorite shows, House. Its painfully procedural, but still has mind capturing characters, all of whom you can actually see grow as the show progresses. Season 4 was a wonderful change up of formula, after a dragging season 3, and ended on a tragic, yet still brilliant point. Or at least, it would have been brilliant if the following season opener wasn't so pathetic at the follow up.
It started out nicely, with a strong basis, and then began to die. Its has shifted towards side characters who don't even have the good standing to be in the opening credits. (The show's opening credits haven't changed once since the show began, though one season used a different opening song) I was unable to press on after the second episode, though I know I should watch til about the 5th or 6th one in, as it is still dealing with my two die hard favorites, House and Wilson. I've only heard horrible things though that causes me to back away slowly as if it were a rabid dog ready to bite.
I don't understand why initially ensemble casts force the watcher to focus on the same set of characters every week (Cough cough Foreman and Thirteen) and to waste the characters that are actually intriguing to watch (Wilson, either up the dosage on those antidepressants or kill yourself, because Amber isn't coming back.) I also don't understand why writers spend season after season building truly good roots for romance between two characters (House and Wilson. The sexual tension is palpable. Or maybe that's just me...) simply because it goes against the grain. It is broadcast on Fox after all, and they coined the phrase "terrorist fist bump". Hey, we all love Cuddy, but does House NEED to love her too? I don't think he does. And backing this theory is the producer, as well as a few of the writers. Hugh Laurie himself has said he's happily open to House and Wilson getting their love on, if Robert Sean Leonard is comfortable. (We love you, Robert. wink wink nudge nudge.)
Speaking of Cuddy, do all women, once they've become mothers, need to become sniveling, weepy whiners? Really? You spend five seasons developing this woman as a strong, independent woman, and then trash that entire build up as soon as you throw in a baby. For a woman at the top of her field, and a successful handler of one of the most stressing human being on network television (Dr. Cox and House would make a wonderful team, if you like interns with slashed wrists) you would think that she would successfully adapt to a baby. But no, any and all women must be portrayed as ye damsels in distress. This was decreed after the finale of Xena. You can't have too many bad ass chicks on television. Gives us ideas.
I'll pull away from my rant, which is obviously fueled by being slighted out of a finely crafted bromance, and return to the initial point. House is only an example of failed plotlines and shark jumping. After so many seasons, you begin to feel as if you've wasted effort on a show as it begins to tumble down without the satisfying pop into the towel. I think thats why I find British television more appealing. They know that, inevitably, all things must end (Except Doctor Who.) and often deliver that satisfying end to the viewers at home.
We, though, on this side of the big pond, insist on dragging things out. Milking that last dollar from the franchise. Without a Trace started out brilliantly, but is trapped in its formula. It remained trapped long enough that I lost interest. Two and a Half Men stumbled along, with a few shining points, and finally began picking up when the kid's voice finally changed, though you have to wonder how it lasted that long and if it really should have. CSI: Miami is a television TRAVESTY, and I'm horrified that this is actually the favorite in most countries. I'd like to point out that this also follows the franchise trend. I won't get into Law and Order. I wholly stand that it should have ended when Jerry Orbach did, perhaps even sooner. You can only rehash it so many times.
This isn't to say that some truly great shows haven't come of these lengthy endeavors. CSI (The original, now) has recently breathed new life into its series, through a fine finale of last season, a successful exit of William Peterson (though they almost ruined that with that Deathly Hollows-esque epilogue) and the successful arrival of Laurence Fishburne. The show needed a feeling of new, and a reteaching of old skills. After so many seasons its difficult to simply fall into a show that relies so heavily on the viewer knowing what the characters are doing with that there microscope. I'm glad they gave it a boost.
NCIS seemed as if it was attempting that change up of cast, and I'm thankful that it didn't jump the gun on that. It was painful, as much as I love DiNozzo, to watch the team flounder without our loveable Gibbs. Ensemble-wise, this is probably the best show on television, besting other ensemble based shows that are on in the same time slots. It continues to be witty, fascinating, and still carries its twist and turns. I was worried when they threatened soap opera type plotlines, but I shouldn't have been. NCIS has always delivered, and hopefully will continue, without floundering.
If we're not dragging things out, then we insist upon fantastical storylines that are blown out of proportion or completely unrealistic. Criminal Minds recently revealed more of the past of the fan favorite Reid, but as much as I enjoy his character, I did cringe when I saw those episodes. One was brilliantly crafted, though certainly had an overdone portion. This one was perhaps justified, as people who have not felt the abuse of their peers through school years can't fully understand why a person would react so violently. You would need something to envoke a stronger reaction. (Season 3, Elephant's Memory) The other, on the other hand, came out from left field and I felt a bit of credibility leak out of the writers. (Season 4, The Instincts/Memoriam) This isn't to say that this show hasn't delivered again and again (Big Game/Revelations, Lucky/Penelope, Seven Seconds, Lo-fi/Mayhem, Normal, the list goes on) as well as took the blow of losing a title member suddenly (Though they replaced Patinkin with Mantegna, which, to me, was an unneeded addition to the cast. Seven Seconds proved that.). As for completely fantastical... Well, I mentioned CSI: Miami already didn't I?
Another habit of our television networks is canceling shows that are actually worthy of being on television. We recently lost a fond member of 'great television', Pushing Daisies. A truly brilliant gem amongst what I fondly call CRAP, and it was scrapped because the producer/director couldn't be bothered with fighting for the show, and the network couldn't be bothered with advertising it. For shame.
As for the final habit, and what I find the most PAINFUL, is the fact that we steal. We steal and we steal. There are many films that have been 'borrowed' but we'll stick to the TV. Recently, ABC picked up a show called 'Life on Mars'. Its fine, for our standard of television, though its more cerebral than what we're used to. What I cringe at is that I'd already seen this show. Life on Mars was originally a BBC series that ran for two seasons, with John Simm and Philip Glenister as the leads. You simply can't replace that talent. Eleventh Hour, originally starring Patrick Stewart, was taken and Americanized by CBS. I'm sure commercials will run for it soon, but State of Play, originally a BBC mini series (John Simm, David Morrissey, plus ensemble, with Marc Warren as one of his best roles) is being, or really, has been made into a movie. The director felt the need to cast Russel Crowe (Originally Brad Pitt, much worse) and Ben Affleck (Originally Edward Norton, much better) respectively, in the prior mentioned actors' places, and worst, Helen Mirren (though good as she is) in Bill Nighy's role.
Are we unable to find writers in our own country anymore? Do we really have to steal from Britain, Asia and the Orient? We have stolen just about anything we think could make money from (Including Doctor Who, and FOR SHAME, Fox, FOR SHAME.) and quite often have ruined the original source material in an attempt to make it more relateable. I thought television was originally a way to expand peoples' views of the world, not enclose them into a continually smaller box to avoid inconvenient questions.
I think my rant has gone on long enough, and if you've made it this far, I commend you. I shall now plug a few shows that I believe are true jewels:
NCIS, Criminal Minds, CSI (Original), Life on Mars (BBC), State of Play (BBC), Pushing Daisies, United States of Tara, Dexter, Gary Unmarried, Scrubs, House (Yeah, I know, I just trashed it..) and of course, Doctor Who (And all its spin-offs)
And allow you freedom. Away, away...
Perhaps its a bit selfish of anyone to nitpick on writers of television, particularly if your nitpick is "I could do this better". I often respond to this with put up or shut up, and at times am usually faced with what the world fondly calls 'fan fiction.' I've been pleasantly surprised to see that many times the fan fiction rivals or surpasses the writing on the show.
A painful example of this comes from one of my favorite shows, House. Its painfully procedural, but still has mind capturing characters, all of whom you can actually see grow as the show progresses. Season 4 was a wonderful change up of formula, after a dragging season 3, and ended on a tragic, yet still brilliant point. Or at least, it would have been brilliant if the following season opener wasn't so pathetic at the follow up.
It started out nicely, with a strong basis, and then began to die. Its has shifted towards side characters who don't even have the good standing to be in the opening credits. (The show's opening credits haven't changed once since the show began, though one season used a different opening song) I was unable to press on after the second episode, though I know I should watch til about the 5th or 6th one in, as it is still dealing with my two die hard favorites, House and Wilson. I've only heard horrible things though that causes me to back away slowly as if it were a rabid dog ready to bite.
I don't understand why initially ensemble casts force the watcher to focus on the same set of characters every week (Cough cough Foreman and Thirteen) and to waste the characters that are actually intriguing to watch (Wilson, either up the dosage on those antidepressants or kill yourself, because Amber isn't coming back.) I also don't understand why writers spend season after season building truly good roots for romance between two characters (House and Wilson. The sexual tension is palpable. Or maybe that's just me...) simply because it goes against the grain. It is broadcast on Fox after all, and they coined the phrase "terrorist fist bump". Hey, we all love Cuddy, but does House NEED to love her too? I don't think he does. And backing this theory is the producer, as well as a few of the writers. Hugh Laurie himself has said he's happily open to House and Wilson getting their love on, if Robert Sean Leonard is comfortable. (We love you, Robert. wink wink nudge nudge.)
Speaking of Cuddy, do all women, once they've become mothers, need to become sniveling, weepy whiners? Really? You spend five seasons developing this woman as a strong, independent woman, and then trash that entire build up as soon as you throw in a baby. For a woman at the top of her field, and a successful handler of one of the most stressing human being on network television (Dr. Cox and House would make a wonderful team, if you like interns with slashed wrists) you would think that she would successfully adapt to a baby. But no, any and all women must be portrayed as ye damsels in distress. This was decreed after the finale of Xena. You can't have too many bad ass chicks on television. Gives us ideas.
I'll pull away from my rant, which is obviously fueled by being slighted out of a finely crafted bromance, and return to the initial point. House is only an example of failed plotlines and shark jumping. After so many seasons, you begin to feel as if you've wasted effort on a show as it begins to tumble down without the satisfying pop into the towel. I think thats why I find British television more appealing. They know that, inevitably, all things must end (Except Doctor Who.) and often deliver that satisfying end to the viewers at home.
We, though, on this side of the big pond, insist on dragging things out. Milking that last dollar from the franchise. Without a Trace started out brilliantly, but is trapped in its formula. It remained trapped long enough that I lost interest. Two and a Half Men stumbled along, with a few shining points, and finally began picking up when the kid's voice finally changed, though you have to wonder how it lasted that long and if it really should have. CSI: Miami is a television TRAVESTY, and I'm horrified that this is actually the favorite in most countries. I'd like to point out that this also follows the franchise trend. I won't get into Law and Order. I wholly stand that it should have ended when Jerry Orbach did, perhaps even sooner. You can only rehash it so many times.
This isn't to say that some truly great shows haven't come of these lengthy endeavors. CSI (The original, now) has recently breathed new life into its series, through a fine finale of last season, a successful exit of William Peterson (though they almost ruined that with that Deathly Hollows-esque epilogue) and the successful arrival of Laurence Fishburne. The show needed a feeling of new, and a reteaching of old skills. After so many seasons its difficult to simply fall into a show that relies so heavily on the viewer knowing what the characters are doing with that there microscope. I'm glad they gave it a boost.
NCIS seemed as if it was attempting that change up of cast, and I'm thankful that it didn't jump the gun on that. It was painful, as much as I love DiNozzo, to watch the team flounder without our loveable Gibbs. Ensemble-wise, this is probably the best show on television, besting other ensemble based shows that are on in the same time slots. It continues to be witty, fascinating, and still carries its twist and turns. I was worried when they threatened soap opera type plotlines, but I shouldn't have been. NCIS has always delivered, and hopefully will continue, without floundering.
If we're not dragging things out, then we insist upon fantastical storylines that are blown out of proportion or completely unrealistic. Criminal Minds recently revealed more of the past of the fan favorite Reid, but as much as I enjoy his character, I did cringe when I saw those episodes. One was brilliantly crafted, though certainly had an overdone portion. This one was perhaps justified, as people who have not felt the abuse of their peers through school years can't fully understand why a person would react so violently. You would need something to envoke a stronger reaction. (Season 3, Elephant's Memory) The other, on the other hand, came out from left field and I felt a bit of credibility leak out of the writers. (Season 4, The Instincts/Memoriam) This isn't to say that this show hasn't delivered again and again (Big Game/Revelations, Lucky/Penelope, Seven Seconds, Lo-fi/Mayhem, Normal, the list goes on) as well as took the blow of losing a title member suddenly (Though they replaced Patinkin with Mantegna, which, to me, was an unneeded addition to the cast. Seven Seconds proved that.). As for completely fantastical... Well, I mentioned CSI: Miami already didn't I?
Another habit of our television networks is canceling shows that are actually worthy of being on television. We recently lost a fond member of 'great television', Pushing Daisies. A truly brilliant gem amongst what I fondly call CRAP, and it was scrapped because the producer/director couldn't be bothered with fighting for the show, and the network couldn't be bothered with advertising it. For shame.
As for the final habit, and what I find the most PAINFUL, is the fact that we steal. We steal and we steal. There are many films that have been 'borrowed' but we'll stick to the TV. Recently, ABC picked up a show called 'Life on Mars'. Its fine, for our standard of television, though its more cerebral than what we're used to. What I cringe at is that I'd already seen this show. Life on Mars was originally a BBC series that ran for two seasons, with John Simm and Philip Glenister as the leads. You simply can't replace that talent. Eleventh Hour, originally starring Patrick Stewart, was taken and Americanized by CBS. I'm sure commercials will run for it soon, but State of Play, originally a BBC mini series (John Simm, David Morrissey, plus ensemble, with Marc Warren as one of his best roles) is being, or really, has been made into a movie. The director felt the need to cast Russel Crowe (Originally Brad Pitt, much worse) and Ben Affleck (Originally Edward Norton, much better) respectively, in the prior mentioned actors' places, and worst, Helen Mirren (though good as she is) in Bill Nighy's role.
Are we unable to find writers in our own country anymore? Do we really have to steal from Britain, Asia and the Orient? We have stolen just about anything we think could make money from (Including Doctor Who, and FOR SHAME, Fox, FOR SHAME.) and quite often have ruined the original source material in an attempt to make it more relateable. I thought television was originally a way to expand peoples' views of the world, not enclose them into a continually smaller box to avoid inconvenient questions.
I think my rant has gone on long enough, and if you've made it this far, I commend you. I shall now plug a few shows that I believe are true jewels:
NCIS, Criminal Minds, CSI (Original), Life on Mars (BBC), State of Play (BBC), Pushing Daisies, United States of Tara, Dexter, Gary Unmarried, Scrubs, House (Yeah, I know, I just trashed it..) and of course, Doctor Who (And all its spin-offs)
And allow you freedom. Away, away...
Monday, February 23, 2009
iArrive
The only reason I remembered the existence of blogger is the fact that my aunt Robb reminded me of it.
I should write something poignant as my first post. I'm thinking very hard... And I believe I will go with a train of thought.
I notice some of my most interesting writing utilizes Grecian levels of tragedy at times. I wonder what that says about myself. Then I stop wondering, because it very obviously points out that I'm a rather depressed person.
Another note: After reviewing my favorites out of my list of characters, I found that each of them hide who they are. Not at normal levels, though Sorano is rather close to normal levels of hiding. I have one character who is so utterly closed off that even those closest to him don't realize exactly how damaged he is. On the other end of the spectrum, and not so mysteriously the most difficult to write is the one character who is completely open with anyone he meets. The problem with him is that he's a psychopath. I love them so.
What the most amusing thing is is that any of my characters could become a favorite of anyone. People are naturally tragic, closed off things. That's not to say that human beings are not social creatures. The problem with being social creatures is fitting in with the rest of the surrounding society. This results in everyone hiding who they are. We are not sheep, after all. Some of us neigh where others tweet, and at times, we are offended by the bellowing of the local cow.
I attempt to live in a place of neutrality, avoiding the conflicts brought on by clashing social interaction. The only problem with doing this is that I have to stamp down my own honest opinions and my own personal views. To me, that's an awful thing to do. Recently my internal self has been shouting out and telling me that I should be a more honest human being. The part of me that strives for self preservation has been winning in this battle, and I've kept my mouth shut.
The base issue of continually crushing who you are is that inevitably, it will break out. Recently, my inner self broke out in the most irritating of ways, through a burst of panic and anxiety. When I think about it, trapped animals react in the same way. They wish for freedom, no matter how small the burst, and that brief freedom is often a result of panic. The more base creatures of the world do not frown upon these wild acts of anxious abandon. I'm sadly a member of the more complex, and I feel the frowns, even if they are not there.
In exchange for sacrificing who I am by force, I find I enjoy sacrificing who I am by choice through cosplay, and roleplay. To act, and become someone else for a time, and to have others accept it is an enjoyable thing, especially when the acting is a part of your core self. A part that you've preserved and cultivated over the years. And I do believe I'm a fine actor. After all, people believe me to be their best of friend when I can barely stand the thought of being around them.
Writing, I feel, is a fine reflection of yourself. My writing is tragic, filled with characters who can't face themselves, or allow others to see who they honestly are. My favorite endings to these stories is when they do finally allow people in, and are happier for it. I don't find it strange that none of my stories with these endings have ever been completed to my satisfaction. I consider it a fine parallel to the fact that I haven't had my satisfying moment of clarity.
I do find it irritating that I haven't been able to write anything of worth in weeks now.
In the mean time, I give you an example of Grecian tragedy, in form of fanfiction:
http://nobiwriting.livejournal.com/3293.html#cutid1
Enjoy whatever else you may find on there, if it pleases you.
~Nobi~
I should write something poignant as my first post. I'm thinking very hard... And I believe I will go with a train of thought.
I notice some of my most interesting writing utilizes Grecian levels of tragedy at times. I wonder what that says about myself. Then I stop wondering, because it very obviously points out that I'm a rather depressed person.
Another note: After reviewing my favorites out of my list of characters, I found that each of them hide who they are. Not at normal levels, though Sorano is rather close to normal levels of hiding. I have one character who is so utterly closed off that even those closest to him don't realize exactly how damaged he is. On the other end of the spectrum, and not so mysteriously the most difficult to write is the one character who is completely open with anyone he meets. The problem with him is that he's a psychopath. I love them so.
What the most amusing thing is is that any of my characters could become a favorite of anyone. People are naturally tragic, closed off things. That's not to say that human beings are not social creatures. The problem with being social creatures is fitting in with the rest of the surrounding society. This results in everyone hiding who they are. We are not sheep, after all. Some of us neigh where others tweet, and at times, we are offended by the bellowing of the local cow.
I attempt to live in a place of neutrality, avoiding the conflicts brought on by clashing social interaction. The only problem with doing this is that I have to stamp down my own honest opinions and my own personal views. To me, that's an awful thing to do. Recently my internal self has been shouting out and telling me that I should be a more honest human being. The part of me that strives for self preservation has been winning in this battle, and I've kept my mouth shut.
The base issue of continually crushing who you are is that inevitably, it will break out. Recently, my inner self broke out in the most irritating of ways, through a burst of panic and anxiety. When I think about it, trapped animals react in the same way. They wish for freedom, no matter how small the burst, and that brief freedom is often a result of panic. The more base creatures of the world do not frown upon these wild acts of anxious abandon. I'm sadly a member of the more complex, and I feel the frowns, even if they are not there.
In exchange for sacrificing who I am by force, I find I enjoy sacrificing who I am by choice through cosplay, and roleplay. To act, and become someone else for a time, and to have others accept it is an enjoyable thing, especially when the acting is a part of your core self. A part that you've preserved and cultivated over the years. And I do believe I'm a fine actor. After all, people believe me to be their best of friend when I can barely stand the thought of being around them.
Writing, I feel, is a fine reflection of yourself. My writing is tragic, filled with characters who can't face themselves, or allow others to see who they honestly are. My favorite endings to these stories is when they do finally allow people in, and are happier for it. I don't find it strange that none of my stories with these endings have ever been completed to my satisfaction. I consider it a fine parallel to the fact that I haven't had my satisfying moment of clarity.
I do find it irritating that I haven't been able to write anything of worth in weeks now.
In the mean time, I give you an example of Grecian tragedy, in form of fanfiction:
http://nobiwriting.livejournal.com/3293.html#cutid1
Enjoy whatever else you may find on there, if it pleases you.
~Nobi~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
