![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSomething I've been thinking about recently is whether it's really true that what all human beings want in life in general is whatever it is they can't have. I mean, that's really depressing, isn't it? Haha, Sark said that on Alias :D It's also on my mind 'cause of Vaughn, and if-- well, if we don't want what we used to want anymore 'too soon', did we really want it? Memory strengthens desire, but they're not dependent on one another, are they...
Anyway, I'm still watching pretty obsessively, 'cause. It's pure crack, man. Pure, high-grade, absolute CRACK, and I find it so amusing that no one's recced it to me or anything, 'cause I think it qualifies as something like a fantasy show, hahaha. It's like... the mother of all crackfics. The promised crackfic in the sky. The only thing that's yet to happen in the crackland of Alias is mpreg, and, y'know, give it time. You get the point :> Well, if fantasy = crack = fantasy, anyway ^^;;;;
Also, I've been thinking about intelligent characters. Like... every story tends to have (more or less) intelligent characters, if you mean they're good at something involving rational thought, or even creativity, but that's not what I mean. They're most common in 'fancy' or literary novels, I guess, where everyone's too self-aware (and/or self-conscious) and there's no great plot, plus the emotional upheaval tends to be subtle or insiduous rather than dramatic. I suppose you'd call that the 'modern novel', whereas what I usually read or watch is more... um, classic? Haha. Even if it's more pulpy and much less sophisticated.
...Actually, this is also an interesting line of thought, 'cause maybe you get less emotionally intelligent characters in more Greek-play-like (dramatic? tragicomic? something) stories, where everyone's a fool doomed by themselves, so by nature they can't think their way out of their own box. In that sense, Alias is a lot like a Greek play, except on crack 'cause nothing too serious seems to happen if it doesn't serve Teh Crack purposes (ie, to be insane) :D
What I mean is-- take me, for instance. I see through a lot of characters' (well, people's) stupid behavior psychologically speaking, even if I obviously make my own mistakes anyway. But at least that's a sort of intelligence, isn't it? Being able to not just understand or analyze others' motives like a sociopath or a lawyer could and would in your average detective story, but being someone who's able to see others with both common sense and compassion and willing to communicate with them about it. Why are there so few characters like that in 'normal' dramas? Would they just weigh down the story and defuse the necessary tension or what? Isn't it good to defuse the tension at least -sometimes- by communication that's both soothing -and- revealing?
I mean, there are definitely your typical 'old wise man/woman on the mountain' types, but they're certainly kept out of the action. Perhaps stories get written about emotionally immature people by definition, and hey, I love emotionally immature people, they're fun, so it's fine, but. Even with the 'wise man' archetype, it's not like they really understand, generally, so much as they have their own brand of bullshit and/or their own angle on things that other characters just don't -get- as easily. That's how it is with Dumbledore, right? I mean, that's not wisdom, precisely, so much as divergent interests, perhaps.
There's a psychologist on Alias, for instance, but she doesn't serve the 'compassionate understanding' function at all, because for one she's confined in her influence to the time a few especially traumatized characters visit her office, and for another thing she listens and says very little, so she's barely a character at all. She serves a 'theoretical listener' function, I guess I'd say. And of course people talk to their friends, but they talk in a certain way-- and I suppose friends generally don't push too hard or say difficult things that would threaten the friendship?
In Alias, Sydney's friends are 'on her side' and Will actually seemed pretty intuitive, but I guess I'd say their character's functions precluded them from being too insightful 'cause of pretty high bias. Maybe that's just generally how it is in real life-- I know that. And maybe it'd be too boring-- killing drama-- if characters were too emotionally intelligent. And of course you need both people to be emotionally intelligent for success anyway.
Actually, I get satisfied with the level of communication & honesty in female friendships the most in fiction, come to think of it (and this has always been a type of reasoning for why women write those sensitive lovelorn men in slashfics, right?). On some level, I probably expect men not to be emotionally intelligent in stories (I mean, that's 'just realistic', I guess), but I don't think most female characters are that insightful either. Given, maybe Alias isn't the best case study here anyway.
Basically, it's very rare I feel people are being sufficiently intelligent & honest in a m/f or any kind of romance, especially, though even in female friendships in fiction, there's a lot of power-plays and bullshit. So I was thinking of Junko from the 'Nana' manga, who really personifies the kind of character I'm talking about: she's totally open and honest with her friends, and she doesn't bullshit or generally say self-serving things. I still remember when she told her bf she wasn't on Nana's side or her ex's, whom she was also friends with, but on the side of justice. ♥.
Still... still, I was reading the reviews for The Year of Magical Thinking, a memoir I haven't read by Joan Didion about her grieving for her husband, and it just struck me how... well, not understanding a lot of the reviewers were because she was 'too cool' or 'too snobby' or just too different and how they found that boring. Like, even if a character is totally emotionally 'authentic', there's no guarantee others would see it that way-- wouldn't that actually take intelligence even to see? Intelligence and a lack of cavalier judgment.
It's possible a character that 'really understands' wouldn't even be seen as 'understanding' by 'normal' people in a story because people see or define understanding so differently, especially emotional understanding. Objectively, it's easy to see when people are 'smart', but when it comes to emotions, people get defensive and project their issues left and right without even noticing, right. I'd imagine it would take a really good writer to set a 'clear-seeing' yet cool (meaning, not too obviously biased or excitable) character in a normal dramatic setting where they would be both appreciated and listened to. The closest analog in mainstream media is probably Tara from Buffy, but I don't think she -did- serve that function even if she could have.
It's just frustrating 'cause I think a lot of characters' issues would be solved if they really communicated about how they felt or were able to really perceive how -others- felt. But. Eh.
Anyway, I'm still watching pretty obsessively, 'cause. It's pure crack, man. Pure, high-grade, absolute CRACK, and I find it so amusing that no one's recced it to me or anything, 'cause I think it qualifies as something like a fantasy show, hahaha. It's like... the mother of all crackfics. The promised crackfic in the sky. The only thing that's yet to happen in the crackland of Alias is mpreg, and, y'know, give it time. You get the point :> Well, if fantasy = crack = fantasy, anyway ^^;;;;
Also, I've been thinking about intelligent characters. Like... every story tends to have (more or less) intelligent characters, if you mean they're good at something involving rational thought, or even creativity, but that's not what I mean. They're most common in 'fancy' or literary novels, I guess, where everyone's too self-aware (and/or self-conscious) and there's no great plot, plus the emotional upheaval tends to be subtle or insiduous rather than dramatic. I suppose you'd call that the 'modern novel', whereas what I usually read or watch is more... um, classic? Haha. Even if it's more pulpy and much less sophisticated.
...Actually, this is also an interesting line of thought, 'cause maybe you get less emotionally intelligent characters in more Greek-play-like (dramatic? tragicomic? something) stories, where everyone's a fool doomed by themselves, so by nature they can't think their way out of their own box. In that sense, Alias is a lot like a Greek play, except on crack 'cause nothing too serious seems to happen if it doesn't serve Teh Crack purposes (ie, to be insane) :D
What I mean is-- take me, for instance. I see through a lot of characters' (well, people's) stupid behavior psychologically speaking, even if I obviously make my own mistakes anyway. But at least that's a sort of intelligence, isn't it? Being able to not just understand or analyze others' motives like a sociopath or a lawyer could and would in your average detective story, but being someone who's able to see others with both common sense and compassion and willing to communicate with them about it. Why are there so few characters like that in 'normal' dramas? Would they just weigh down the story and defuse the necessary tension or what? Isn't it good to defuse the tension at least -sometimes- by communication that's both soothing -and- revealing?
I mean, there are definitely your typical 'old wise man/woman on the mountain' types, but they're certainly kept out of the action. Perhaps stories get written about emotionally immature people by definition, and hey, I love emotionally immature people, they're fun, so it's fine, but. Even with the 'wise man' archetype, it's not like they really understand, generally, so much as they have their own brand of bullshit and/or their own angle on things that other characters just don't -get- as easily. That's how it is with Dumbledore, right? I mean, that's not wisdom, precisely, so much as divergent interests, perhaps.
There's a psychologist on Alias, for instance, but she doesn't serve the 'compassionate understanding' function at all, because for one she's confined in her influence to the time a few especially traumatized characters visit her office, and for another thing she listens and says very little, so she's barely a character at all. She serves a 'theoretical listener' function, I guess I'd say. And of course people talk to their friends, but they talk in a certain way-- and I suppose friends generally don't push too hard or say difficult things that would threaten the friendship?
In Alias, Sydney's friends are 'on her side' and Will actually seemed pretty intuitive, but I guess I'd say their character's functions precluded them from being too insightful 'cause of pretty high bias. Maybe that's just generally how it is in real life-- I know that. And maybe it'd be too boring-- killing drama-- if characters were too emotionally intelligent. And of course you need both people to be emotionally intelligent for success anyway.
Actually, I get satisfied with the level of communication & honesty in female friendships the most in fiction, come to think of it (and this has always been a type of reasoning for why women write those sensitive lovelorn men in slashfics, right?). On some level, I probably expect men not to be emotionally intelligent in stories (I mean, that's 'just realistic', I guess), but I don't think most female characters are that insightful either. Given, maybe Alias isn't the best case study here anyway.
Basically, it's very rare I feel people are being sufficiently intelligent & honest in a m/f or any kind of romance, especially, though even in female friendships in fiction, there's a lot of power-plays and bullshit. So I was thinking of Junko from the 'Nana' manga, who really personifies the kind of character I'm talking about: she's totally open and honest with her friends, and she doesn't bullshit or generally say self-serving things. I still remember when she told her bf she wasn't on Nana's side or her ex's, whom she was also friends with, but on the side of justice. ♥.
Still... still, I was reading the reviews for The Year of Magical Thinking, a memoir I haven't read by Joan Didion about her grieving for her husband, and it just struck me how... well, not understanding a lot of the reviewers were because she was 'too cool' or 'too snobby' or just too different and how they found that boring. Like, even if a character is totally emotionally 'authentic', there's no guarantee others would see it that way-- wouldn't that actually take intelligence even to see? Intelligence and a lack of cavalier judgment.
It's possible a character that 'really understands' wouldn't even be seen as 'understanding' by 'normal' people in a story because people see or define understanding so differently, especially emotional understanding. Objectively, it's easy to see when people are 'smart', but when it comes to emotions, people get defensive and project their issues left and right without even noticing, right. I'd imagine it would take a really good writer to set a 'clear-seeing' yet cool (meaning, not too obviously biased or excitable) character in a normal dramatic setting where they would be both appreciated and listened to. The closest analog in mainstream media is probably Tara from Buffy, but I don't think she -did- serve that function even if she could have.
It's just frustrating 'cause I think a lot of characters' issues would be solved if they really communicated about how they felt or were able to really perceive how -others- felt. But. Eh.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 06:48 pm (UTC)I don't want things to just get resolved, in other words, but it does get 'tedious' when everyone is being totally dumb all the time. I'm just like '...okay, I give up, you people are idiots' -.- I'd probably burn out slower if they weren't quite as idiotic 'cause someone was giving them a trickle of good advice. Or at least, I -think- that was my point, somewhere in there, ahahah.