Is current icon one of your efforts? It's lovely. It is! Thank you. This one too.
And quite an unusual cap, which I like. :) Well, then I imagine you're going to like the finished collection. Is there such a thing as an icon post of meta? Cause here's what happened. I:
1) realized most of the icons I liked managed to find an unusual view on the scene. 2) always felt vaguely dissatisfied with most of the River icons out there. 3) felt like playing around with some icon making and seeing what I could come up with/honing my skills a bit.
I'm not sure what happened here though:
/sheepish
And enjoy the meta - the threads are legion by now, but quite fascinating, and very amicable, and we've just about managed to meet in the middle. *g* Wow--definitely very excited now.
(We can DEFINITELY agree that Ten wasn't very serene...) Haha! *suppresses the urge to go play devil's advocate, just 'cause*
Well, then I imagine you're going to like the finished collection. Is there such a thing as an icon post of meta? OMG! Have I mentioned recently that you are one of my favourite people? I love icons because they can say so much. I mean I like pretty icons, but often I end up with a very specific idea of what I want, and then I end up trawling through endless icon posts in the hope that someone's made it. If that fails I usually go beg Kathy to take pity on me. I especially love icons with text, tying it into something else and add meaning that way. (Like, say, this one.) Plus, unusual caps are ALWAYS a plus. I am v. excited now to see what you come up with!
I'm not sure what happened here though Heeeeeeeee! That's *fabulous*!
I'm sure you'll love the post + comments - it's kept me enthralled for nearly a day now. *g*
OMG! Have I mentioned recently that you are one of my favourite people? *g* Actually, I rather think you have . . . but don't let me stop you ;-)
I love icons because they can say so much. I mean I like pretty icons, but often I end up with a very specific idea of what I want, and then I end up trawling through endless icon posts in the hope that someone's made it. If that fails I usually go beg Kathy to take pity on me. I especially love icons with text, tying it into something else and add meaning that way. (Like, say, this one.) Plus, unusual caps are ALWAYS a plus. I am v. excited now to see what you come up with!
*nod, nod, nod* Very much agreed. It's been an interesting day (also very tiring!).
I've got a preliminary batch up here, just to see how they were turning out.
Heeeeeeeee! That's *fabulous*! Thanks :) I was giggling somewhat uncontrollably to myself when I thought it up. Of course, it was rather late at night . . .
I'm sure you'll love the post + comments - it's kept me enthralled for nearly a day now. *g* Loved it. Must get back when my brain isn't fried with graphics-making.
*g* Actually, I rather think you have . . . but don't let me stop you ;-) I don't think you'd have been able to anyway... ;)
*nod, nod, nod* Very much agreed. It's been an interesting day (also very tiring!). I can imagine!
I've got a preliminary batch up here, just to see how they were turning out. I shall have a swift look, but since we're going out I'll have to get back to you later.
Thanks :) I was giggling somewhat uncontrollably to myself when I thought it up. Of course, it was rather late at night . . . That's when all the best ideas come!
Loved it. Must get back when my brain isn't fried with graphics-making. Very much looking forward to anything you might say. Because whilst I love ol' Rusty, I can understand why others don't - their reasons make sense to me. But I can't wrap my head around where the opposite camp comes from, which makes discussions rather tricky.
I shall have a swift look, but since we're going out I'll have to get back to you later.
Have been tweaking them all day, actually. Why is it that at soon as you put something into the public eye, you immediately see how it needs improvement?
Because whilst I love ol' Rusty, I can understand why others don't - their reasons make sense to me. But I can't wrap my head around where the opposite camp comes from, which makes discussions rather tricky.
Had an insight I had to share w/r/t Amy and Rory which, while not really an explanation, is certainly illustrative. So, back when I first started writing the Leadworth AU, I was writing one of those little interstitial flashbacks to the events of "The Big Bang" and I wrote about Amy holding onto Rory while the Doctor was flying into the sun and everything was shaking--I hadn't actually bothered to watch the scene, I just assumed that they were next to each other since they usually are. Imagine my surprise when I did go back and watch to grab some dialogue and found out that River was in between them! Didn't make much of it at the time, but I was working with caps of the same scene and was reminded of it and realized that Amy and Rory in fact get separated and then brought back together in a really interesting way:
1) The last time they're together is when Rory asks her if she's ok and they have the "well, shut up then" conversation. 2) Then River comes over to talk to her and sends her off to the Doctor. And she has her conversation with the Doc in the Pandorica and hears about her parents and such. 3) When she steps back, River tackles her out of the way of the takeoff and sits between Amy and Rory. 4) BB2 happens, Amy fixes her own childhood, we see her literally go back to childhood as little Amelia, etc. 5) Amy phones Rory with her concern about forgetting something and tells him she loves him.
Now, that is some mighty fine symbolic character development there with Amy having to go back to her childhood to heal herself, guided by the Doc and River as stand-in parents, before she can really choose Rory in a healthy, grown-up way.
I'm sure you can well imagine my glee when I thought of this. And for some strange reason that I can't even begin to fathom, the fact that it took me nine months to have this insight about them just makes that entire emotional arc all the more valid to me as a viewer *ships like a shippy person* Now, that's a really, really extreme example of how subtly and symbolically Moffat will handle characters, but the interesting thing is that it's extreme enough for me to fully be able to see that I am the weird one here :P Frankly, anyone who doesn't feel like that actually counts as real character development has my general agreement, even though it is the kind of thing that makes me want to draw hearts around the pair of them.
And I guess that example isn't specifically relevant to the post in question, but it does fit into the general debate. Also I had to tell you about it or my brain would have exploded.
Have been tweaking them all day, actually. Why is it that at soon as you put something into the public eye, you immediately see how it needs improvement? Human nature? I do the same with fics, sometimes.
Now, that is some mighty fine symbolic character development there with Amy having to go back to her childhood to heal herself, guided by the Doc and River as stand-in parents, before she can really choose Rory in a healthy, grown-up way. Oh, very good!
Frankly, anyone who doesn't feel like that actually counts as real character development has my general agreement, even though it is the kind of thing that makes me want to draw hearts around the pair of them. Hmm. Well this is where my years of Buffy analysis come in, and where I am used to finding gorgeously tenuous links etc. And the thing is, there are lots of times when I would look at a scene and say 'Well clearly character A means so-and-so'. Later on, I'd discover a mirroring conversation somewhere else, which totally validated my point of view, and I'd be over the moon and make a meta post full of dancing and squee and 'Look! Isn't it clever?' But - I didn't *need* that second point in order to make the first. It was nice to be able to point to it, but I always knew that I was right. (Others, of course, were free to argue that I was as wrong as could be, and that's fair enough. I can see where they come from, I just see the characters differently.) ANYWAY, my point is this: Finding subtle bits of writing that slot in with how we view something is a gift, but the overall story is still perfectly strong without it.
Although I think a lot of people are just not used to show-don't-tell when it comes to character development. And I'm thinking of early Amy, rather than the finale. Can't count the number of people who couldn't get a handle on her...
And I guess that example isn't specifically relevant to the post in question, but it does fit into the general debate. Oh! That reminds me - I made us a filter. So if you like I can make a post, entirely dedicated to our rambling...
Also I had to tell you about it or my brain would have exploded. Oh dear, can't have exploding brains. Makes rather a mess... (On Buffy there's a guy who *literally* explodes because he's so worried. Have I mentioned that I love that show? *g*)
Human nature? I do the same with fics, sometimes. I do the same with fic all the time, albeit not as extensively as I did with the icons. OTOH, I have a lot more experience with being critical of my own writing, so I see it sooner.
Oh, very good! :D
And the thing is, there are lots of times when I would look at a scene and say 'Well clearly character A means so-and-so'. Later on, I'd discover a mirroring conversation somewhere else, which totally validated my point of view, and I'd be over the moon and make a meta post full of dancing and squee and 'Look! Isn't it clever?' But - I didn't *need* that second point in order to make the first. It was nice to be able to point to it, but I always knew that I was right. This is true, and very much my approach to Amy. I'd been arguing that that would be very story arc from the beginning (well, I wasn't sure that she would choose Rory, but the rest was there), and certainly it's more clearly manifested other places in the show. But I was deeply thrilled to see it made so concrete in that sequence.
Although I think a lot of people are just not used to show-don't-tell when it comes to character development. And I'm thinking of early Amy, rather than the finale. Can't count the number of people who couldn't get a handle on her... This might just be one of those fundamental points that fandom as a whole is never going to get around, yes.
Oh! That reminds me - I made us a filter. So if you like I can make a post, entirely dedicated to our rambling... That might be wise. I pity the person who wanders into this thread to wish you a happy new year. How does such a filter work, exactly?
Oh dear, can't have exploding brains. Makes rather a mess... So true. And then I might find that I wanted it later.
(On Buffy there's a guy who *literally* explodes because he's so worried. Have I mentioned that I love that show? *g*) Lol--might have come up!
This is true, and very much my approach to Amy. I'd been arguing that that would be very story arc from the beginning (well, I wasn't sure that she would choose Rory, but the rest was there), and certainly it's more clearly manifested other places in the show. But I was deeply thrilled to see it made so concrete in that sequence. It is a great feeling indeed!
This might just be one of those fundamental points that fandom as a whole is never going to get around, yes. *nods* But then there are people who can't stand Rose. Not to mention TW fandom which has a very ugly Gwen-hating faction. :(
That might be wise. I pity the person who wanders into this thread to wish you a happy new year. LOL!
How does such a filter work, exactly? You go to this page, and it's all pretty straightforward. You can filter your friends page, f.ex, if it gets too big. And it came in handy back in the day when I ran a Buffy comm, and I had a special filter for the other mods so we could discuss stuff in peace. Anyway, I went and set it up this morning, but then we went out. Made a post with a few things, just so it didn't look all empty...
Anyway, I'm going to run again. Am pretending I'm not here... Sh!
Also, back when I was doing the fic writing meme, I had this thought about why I do or do not write in particular fandoms, and I can't shake the feeling that it's probably related to the great Rusty/Moff debates somehow:
So I would say that when it comes to TV I can like a lot of different genres and tones pretty equally. More importantly, ever since I got involved in online fandom I have been heavily invested in four very different shows in that way: House, Battlestar Galactica, How I Met Your Mother, and season 5 of Who. Of those four shows, though, I've only been compelled to write (or even read) fic for the latter two, while the others I've confined myself to discussion and analysis even though, on average, I wouldn't say my love for the two shows I do write for is more than my love for the other two. With BSG and House, I've always felt the idea of writing fic somehow unwelcoming or restrictive. I assumed before that it had something to do with how the characters are drawn with such a high level of detail--trying to write them would somehow feel either invasive or just pointless because they were so fully formed within the show while the characters on HIMYM (which is a sitcom) and Who are drawn with a somewhat looser hand, leaving more room for exploration.
But I'm thinking now that the real difference might have something to do with the difference between comedy and tragedy--in that technical sense we were talking about, having to do with the perspectives the shows operate in. House and BSG both take place in essentially tragic universes--House the show is as mired in its main character's tunnel vision as RTD's Who is in Ten's, and BSG is essentially about two civilizations (or one, depending how you look at it) both on a road to nowhere. HIMYM and Moffat's Who, however, both embrace that comic perspective, and I feel like it really opens up the horizons both of the show and of the fic writer. For one thing, I think it's far easier to take the characters from a comedy and write them in tragic mode for awhile than it is to take the characters from a tragedy and write them comedically (even if you can make them funny). I'm not quite sure what it is, but somehow with the characters of a comedy, I really do feel like I can take them wherever I want to, while with the tragic characters, writing them in any way that got away from the tone and feel of the show wouldn't seem right.
Also, interestingly, it just occurred to me that HIMYM is just as much about storytelling in a very literal and explicit way as Moffat's Who is. The whole show is told from the perspective of the main character, who is telling his children the story of how he met their mother. It's all in flashbacks with voiceover and plays very cleverly with the conventions of storytelling (it owes a whole lot to the structural cleverness of Coupling, while taking it a step further by making all its jumping around and alternate perspectives explicitly about storytelling through the commentary of the narrator). Interesting that the people in solitary_summer's post were talking about Moffat's preoccupation with the mechanics and process of storytelling to--they claimed--the detriment of the story itself.
Hmmm, and I have really managed to thought-spew all over this totally unrelated post without having commented on solitary_summer's post yet. I am still collecting thoughts--might just have to make it my own post. Did you see this comparing Moff and Davies to Pepsi and Coke? Slightly different line of thought, but it did give me pause because the writer took the term "humanism," which I think is the lynchpin of what I want to say about Moffat, and applied it to RTD. This will take some careful definitional wrangling, methinks. Ah well, give me a semantic distinction to make a stand on any day: the writer, as far as I can tell, is using 'humanism' to mean, essentially 'yay, people are special!' while I'm using it rather more specifically as a belief in our ability to apply the human mind to create meaning and order in life.
Also, back when I was doing the fic writing meme, I had this thought about why I do or do not write in particular fandoms Would you believe that I once wrote an essay on this? (See? Brain twins!) Although with a different focus than you have here.
I'm not quite sure what it is, but somehow with the characters of a comedy, I really do feel like I can take them wherever I want to, while with the tragic characters, writing them in any way that got away from the tone and feel of the show wouldn't seem right. Hmm. I'd say read my essay, because I think I agree, but use a different definition. But you may be right - and it's interesting that Buffy (to pick the obvious example) is, despite regularly breaking your heart, also a very funny show. But getting back to the RTD/Moffat thing... I can see the restrictiveness of Ten's story, very much. He's on a downwards spiral the whole time, and when writing fic you have to keep that in mind, or go completely AU. (It's one of the reasons I love TenToo so much - his future is completely open ended.) ETA: Ah screw it, the point of my essay is v. simple: That stories that are character driven are more suited for fic, as opposed to story driven ones. And RTD's era is, in many ways, story driven, since Ten's story is so very specific.
Also, interestingly, it just occurred to me that HIMYM is just as much about storytelling in a very literal and explicit way as Moffat's Who is. Huh. So it is. (I've seen precisely one episode of it. And then the channel showed several episodes of 'Peep Show', and I'm afraid HIMYM came out worse, just because of the wide gulf between US and UK sit coms... One of them polished and shiny, and the other... not. *g* ETA: HIMYM is beautifully crafted, Peep Show is very well observed. I never meant to put your show down! *pets it*)
Did you see this comparing Moff and Davies to Pepsi and Coke? I did, and I walked away. It might have been OK if she'd not mentioned the sexism thing, but there are few things that make me more cross than that. So... I walked away.
Ah well, give me a semantic distinction to make a stand on any day: the writer, as far as I can tell, is using 'humanism' to mean, essentially 'yay, people are special!' while I'm using it rather more specifically as a belief in our ability to apply the human mind to create meaning and order in life. Words are tricky... it's interesting though, that some of my friends who had various problems with RTD, dislike Moffat very much even though he solved the very problems they had. It's very strange.
(Also, I found this icon and had to upload it in your honour! *f*)
Would you believe that I once wrote an essay on this? (See? Brain twins!) I am rapidly falling under the impression that you have written everything. You could say 'would you believe that I've written a meta fic that uses the migratory patterns of hippos to examine themes of good and evil in season 3 of Angel?' and I would think 'of course you have.'
No coincidentally, I once compiled a list of 50(plus) reasons to write fic (inspired by a HIMYM episode in which the characters write a list of 50 reasons to have sex), which still amuses me.
Ah screw it, the point of my essay is v. simple: That stories that are character driven are more suited for fic, as opposed to story driven ones. And RTD's era is, in many ways, story driven, since Ten's story is so very specific. That was a great read--thanks for sharing. And, yes, I think we might be essentially on the same page. It is very strange to think of RTD as story-driven (!) given the way he's generally talked up as a character writer, although I wonder if, weirdly, if you are very invested in exploring a particular character or set of characters, you end up needing to be story-driven? The issue I came up against when watching House was the question of why the writers were choosing to introduce us to this particular character at this particular point in his life--there must be something that happens to him in this stretch of time that makes it somehow noteworthy and worth exploring more than some other stretch--and I think ultimately either the writers didn't know what that reason was, or were forced by network pressures to delay dealing with it in order to keep writing this hit show (US network TV conventions can be murder to a good show idea).
Conversely, I think, as you hit upon, if the writers are more interested in world building or just in establishing a sandbox in which to play around and tell some good stories, I think it really frees everyone up on a character exploration front. HIMYM may claim superficially to have a plot-driven point (the story of how Ted met the mother), but by everyone's admission this is just a device for setting up this little world of these five friends so that the writers could tell little stories about them and explore their lives. Result? Fantastic, character-driven comedy.
This does leave me with the question of whether I could write fic for RTDs Who. I think I probably could but only because this little subsection of tragic, character centered, story-driven show is inherently a part of a larger, comedic, open-ended sandbox, and I would be free to bring in elements of the sandbox in order to write it. The broader perspective is *there*, it's just very much pushed aside in the show proper.
ETA: HIMYM is beautifully crafted, Peep Show is very well observed. I never meant to put your show down! *pets it* Oh, no worries, I didn't think you had. There's no denying British shows have an edge in that way. It's also true, though, that while you can enjoy an episode of HIMYM on a stand-alone basis in the manner of a stereotypical American sitcom, you will be missing half of what's going on. It's very much about character development and a slavish devotion to continuity as much as it is about clever jokes and structuring.
I am rapidly falling under the impression that you have written everything. You could say 'would you believe that I've written a meta fic that uses the migratory patterns of hippos to examine themes of good and evil in season 3 of Angel?' and I would think 'of course you have.' LOL! And I must point out that I've not written *everything* - but I probably know someone who has. ;)
No coincidentally, I once compiled a list of 50(plus) reasons to write fic (inspired by a HIMYM episode in which the characters write a list of 50 reasons to have sex), which still amuses me. I... might have read that once, I think, when I was being nosy and was looking through your LJ. I love stuff like that.
It is very strange to think of RTD as story-driven (!) given the way he's generally talked up as a character writer, although I wonder if, weirdly, if you are very invested in exploring a particular character or set of characters, you end up needing to be story-driven? Hmmm. Dunno. I know that in the Buffy fandom a lot pf people disapproved of the way the show went, so there's a TON of fic that branch off from canon at any point. Literally whole 'verses, as rich and complex as the show itself. (Which is pretty much what I'm doing myself with my Alex verse, which started out because of a single idea and then just refused to stop growing. And I do find it v. interesting to take the characters down very different paths to the show.) Re. RTD in particular, then I think he tends to examine the same kind of issues in all his writing, and so it was maybe inevitable that the Doctor would go in that direction also...
The issue I came up against when watching House was the question of why the writers were choosing to introduce us to this particular character at this particular point in his life--there must be something that happens to him in this stretch of time that makes it somehow noteworthy and worth exploring more than some other stretch--and I think ultimately either the writers didn't know what that reason was, or were forced by network pressures to delay dealing with it in order to keep writing this hit show (US network TV conventions can be murder to a good show idea). Oh I can see your problems, yes. And I think it's a problem with 'case-of-the-week' shows, generally. On Buffy the Monster of the Week was always tied to the characters' stories (oh the metaphors!) - much like DW - but other shows (medical & detective) tend to focus more on the mystery at the expense of the characters.
Conversely, I think, as you hit upon, if the writers are more interested in world building or just in establishing a sandbox in which to play around and tell some good stories, I think it really frees everyone up on a character exploration front. Just look at Harry Potter...
this is just a device for setting up this little world of these five friends so that the writers could tell little stories about them and explore their lives. Result? Fantastic, character-driven comedy. And a very good set-up it is!
This does leave me with the question of whether I could write fic for RTDs Who. I think I probably could but only because this little subsection of tragic, character centered, story-driven show is inherently a part of a larger, comedic, open-ended sandbox, and I would be free to bring in elements of the sandbox in order to write it. The broader perspective is *there*, it's just very much pushed aside in the show proper. Or do like me and make your own AU sandbox... Or, there's TenToo, which has a lot of possibilities!
that while you can enjoy an episode of HIMYM on a stand-alone basis in the manner of a stereotypical American sitcom, you will be missing half of what's going on. It's very much about character development and a slavish devotion to continuity as much as it is about clever jokes and structuring. Oh I'm SURE - continuity tends to be half the fun. :)
I did, and I walked away. It might have been OK if she'd not mentioned the sexism thing, but there are few things that make me more cross than that. So... I walked away. You didn't miss that much. I wasn't particularly impressed myself, but you never know where the right spark of inspiration is going to come from.
Words are tricky... it's interesting though, that some of my friends who had various problems with RTD, dislike Moffat very much even though he solved the very problems they had. It's very strange. Which begs the question of whether they really wanted the problems solved /catty Or, of course, it's possible that their problem with Moffat is something unrelated. It struck me when reading comments on 'The End of Time' that a lot of people wanted RTD to resolve those problems for *himself*--particularly wanted Ten to find some kind of resolution *as Ten*--and perhaps they are left feeling like Moffat is a bit of an interloper, barging in and imposing a very big change that they don't necessarily object to in principle, but don't quite like in implementation because the break was a little too sudden and the joins between the Ten and Eleven not immediately obvious.
(Also, I found this icon and had to upload it in your honour! *f*) =D Thank you. I saw that one! It is very striking. Ah, the ghost of icons past.
You didn't miss that much. I wasn't particularly impressed myself, but you never know where the right spark of inspiration is going to come from. Very true. And as it happens one of my friends (with similar views) had a similar kind of post, which I went and rambled all over... (She's of the 'I want the Doctor to be the protagonist' mindset, which is fair enough, but she - oddly - finds Eleven to be ill-defined. Like I said, I rambled. *sigh*)
Which begs the question of whether they really wanted the problems solved /catty Me-ow! But I think there's a kernel of truth, actually. RTD is very ambiguous, and a lot of people liked the way his writing challenged them.
a lot of people wanted RTD to resolve those problems for *himself*--particularly wanted Ten to find some kind of resolution *as Ten*--and perhaps they are left feeling like Moffat is a bit of an interloper, barging in and imposing a very big change that they don't necessarily object to in principle, but don't quite like in implementation because the break was a little too sudden and the joins between the Ten and Eleven not immediately obvious. *nods a lot* Apparently Six, immediately after regeneration, tried to strangle his companion (something dear Five would NEVER do), so it's not like sharp shifts haven't happened before... I think it's more that Eleven stopped angsting. And since Ten's been angsting for... 3 years, it is a bit abrupt... Btw did you see this post? Well not the post, but the first comment, which hit the nail on the head *perfectly*:
So here's how I think of the transition from Ten to Eleven. In "The End of Time," when Ten dies, it is with one last big melodramatic, overwrought, overly emotional BANG (because that is how RTD rolls, and I think green_maia was 100% right when she says RTD wanted to write the Doctor's real death and couldn't).
And then he wakes up as Eleven - AND IT'S FINE. Better than fine, really. Sure, the TARDIS is crashing, but it's not like that hasn't happened before, and then he meets this awesome little Scottish girl, and really, things are fine. And the Doctor goes, "Holy crap on a cracker, I was mad. Let's not do that again!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
And I was JUST about to reply to your entry! Hope day shifts agree with you. :)
Plus - did you see this?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Thanks for the links, btw. V. excited for meta, especially. Am playing around making icons, but will read when I need a break!)
no subject
Heee!
Is current icon one of your efforts? It's lovely. And quite an unusual cap, which I like. :)
And enjoy the meta - the threads are legion by now, but quite fascinating, and very amicable, and we've just about managed to meet in the middle. *g*
(We can DEFINITELY agree that Ten wasn't very serene...)
no subject
It is! Thank you. This one too.
And quite an unusual cap, which I like. :)
Well, then I imagine you're going to like the finished collection. Is there such a thing as an icon post of meta? Cause here's what happened. I:
1) realized most of the icons I liked managed to find an unusual view on the scene.
2) always felt vaguely dissatisfied with most of the River icons out there.
3) felt like playing around with some icon making and seeing what I could come up with/honing my skills a bit.
I'm not sure what happened here though:
/sheepish
And enjoy the meta - the threads are legion by now, but quite fascinating, and very amicable, and we've just about managed to meet in the middle. *g*
Wow--definitely very excited now.
(We can DEFINITELY agree that Ten wasn't very serene...)
Haha! *suppresses the urge to go play devil's advocate, just 'cause*
no subject
OMG! Have I mentioned recently that you are one of my favourite people? I love icons because they can say so much. I mean I like pretty icons, but often I end up with a very specific idea of what I want, and then I end up trawling through endless icon posts in the hope that someone's made it. If that fails I usually go beg Kathy to take pity on me. I especially love icons with text, tying it into something else and add meaning that way. (Like, say, this one.) Plus, unusual caps are ALWAYS a plus. I am v. excited now to see what you come up with!
I'm not sure what happened here though
Heeeeeeeee! That's *fabulous*!
I'm sure you'll love the post + comments - it's kept me enthralled for nearly a day now. *g*
no subject
*g* Actually, I rather think you have . . . but don't let me stop you ;-)
I love icons because they can say so much. I mean I like pretty icons, but often I end up with a very specific idea of what I want, and then I end up trawling through endless icon posts in the hope that someone's made it. If that fails I usually go beg Kathy to take pity on me. I especially love icons with text, tying it into something else and add meaning that way. (Like, say, this one.) Plus, unusual caps are ALWAYS a plus. I am v. excited now to see what you come up with!
*nod, nod, nod* Very much agreed. It's been an interesting day (also very tiring!).
I've got a preliminary batch up here, just to see how they were turning out.
Heeeeeeeee! That's *fabulous*!
Thanks :) I was giggling somewhat uncontrollably to myself when I thought it up. Of course, it was rather late at night . . .
I'm sure you'll love the post + comments - it's kept me enthralled for nearly a day now. *g*
Loved it. Must get back when my brain isn't fried with graphics-making.
no subject
I don't think you'd have been able to anyway... ;)
*nod, nod, nod* Very much agreed. It's been an interesting day (also very tiring!).
I can imagine!
I've got a preliminary batch up here, just to see how they were turning out.
I shall have a swift look, but since we're going out I'll have to get back to you later.
Thanks :) I was giggling somewhat uncontrollably to myself when I thought it up. Of course, it was rather late at night . . .
That's when all the best ideas come!
Loved it. Must get back when my brain isn't fried with graphics-making.
Very much looking forward to anything you might say. Because whilst I love ol' Rusty, I can understand why others don't - their reasons make sense to me. But I can't wrap my head around where the opposite camp comes from, which makes discussions rather tricky.
no subject
Have been tweaking them all day, actually. Why is it that at soon as you put something into the public eye, you immediately see how it needs improvement?
Because whilst I love ol' Rusty, I can understand why others don't - their reasons make sense to me. But I can't wrap my head around where the opposite camp comes from, which makes discussions rather tricky.
Had an insight I had to share w/r/t Amy and Rory which, while not really an explanation, is certainly illustrative. So, back when I first started writing the Leadworth AU, I was writing one of those little interstitial flashbacks to the events of "The Big Bang" and I wrote about Amy holding onto Rory while the Doctor was flying into the sun and everything was shaking--I hadn't actually bothered to watch the scene, I just assumed that they were next to each other since they usually are. Imagine my surprise when I did go back and watch to grab some dialogue and found out that River was in between them! Didn't make much of it at the time, but I was working with caps of the same scene and was reminded of it and realized that Amy and Rory in fact get separated and then brought back together in a really interesting way:
1) The last time they're together is when Rory asks her if she's ok and they have the "well, shut up then" conversation.
2) Then River comes over to talk to her and sends her off to the Doctor. And she has her conversation with the Doc in the Pandorica and hears about her parents and such.
3) When she steps back, River tackles her out of the way of the takeoff and sits between Amy and Rory.
4) BB2 happens, Amy fixes her own childhood, we see her literally go back to childhood as little Amelia, etc.
5) Amy phones Rory with her concern about forgetting something and tells him she loves him.
Now, that is some mighty fine symbolic character development there with Amy having to go back to her childhood to heal herself, guided by the Doc and River as stand-in parents, before she can really choose Rory in a healthy, grown-up way.
I'm sure you can well imagine my glee when I thought of this. And for some strange reason that I can't even begin to fathom, the fact that it took me nine months to have this insight about them just makes that entire emotional arc all the more valid to me as a viewer *ships like a shippy person* Now, that's a really, really extreme example of how subtly and symbolically Moffat will handle characters, but the interesting thing is that it's extreme enough for me to fully be able to see that I am the weird one here :P Frankly, anyone who doesn't feel like that actually counts as real character development has my general agreement, even though it is the kind of thing that makes me want to draw hearts around the pair of them.
And I guess that example isn't specifically relevant to the post in question, but it does fit into the general debate. Also I had to tell you about it or my brain would have exploded.
no subject
Human nature? I do the same with fics, sometimes.
Now, that is some mighty fine symbolic character development there with Amy having to go back to her childhood to heal herself, guided by the Doc and River as stand-in parents, before she can really choose Rory in a healthy, grown-up way.
Oh, very good!
Frankly, anyone who doesn't feel like that actually counts as real character development has my general agreement, even though it is the kind of thing that makes me want to draw hearts around the pair of them.
Hmm. Well this is where my years of Buffy analysis come in, and where I am used to finding gorgeously tenuous links etc. And the thing is, there are lots of times when I would look at a scene and say 'Well clearly character A means so-and-so'. Later on, I'd discover a mirroring conversation somewhere else, which totally validated my point of view, and I'd be over the moon and make a meta post full of dancing and squee and 'Look! Isn't it clever?' But - I didn't *need* that second point in order to make the first. It was nice to be able to point to it, but I always knew that I was right. (Others, of course, were free to argue that I was as wrong as could be, and that's fair enough. I can see where they come from, I just see the characters differently.) ANYWAY, my point is this: Finding subtle bits of writing that slot in with how we view something is a gift, but the overall story is still perfectly strong without it.
Although I think a lot of people are just not used to show-don't-tell when it comes to character development. And I'm thinking of early Amy, rather than the finale. Can't count the number of people who couldn't get a handle on her...
And I guess that example isn't specifically relevant to the post in question, but it does fit into the general debate.
Oh! That reminds me - I made us a filter. So if you like I can make a post, entirely dedicated to our rambling...
Also I had to tell you about it or my brain would have exploded.
Oh dear, can't have exploding brains. Makes rather a mess... (On Buffy there's a guy who *literally* explodes because he's so worried. Have I mentioned that I love that show? *g*)
no subject
I do the same with fic all the time, albeit not as extensively as I did with the icons. OTOH, I have a lot more experience with being critical of my own writing, so I see it sooner.
Oh, very good!
:D
And the thing is, there are lots of times when I would look at a scene and say 'Well clearly character A means so-and-so'. Later on, I'd discover a mirroring conversation somewhere else, which totally validated my point of view, and I'd be over the moon and make a meta post full of dancing and squee and 'Look! Isn't it clever?' But - I didn't *need* that second point in order to make the first. It was nice to be able to point to it, but I always knew that I was right.
This is true, and very much my approach to Amy. I'd been arguing that that would be very story arc from the beginning (well, I wasn't sure that she would choose Rory, but the rest was there), and certainly it's more clearly manifested other places in the show. But I was deeply thrilled to see it made so concrete in that sequence.
Although I think a lot of people are just not used to show-don't-tell when it comes to character development. And I'm thinking of early Amy, rather than the finale. Can't count the number of people who couldn't get a handle on her...
This might just be one of those fundamental points that fandom as a whole is never going to get around, yes.
Oh! That reminds me - I made us a filter. So if you like I can make a post, entirely dedicated to our rambling...
That might be wise. I pity the person who wanders into this thread to wish you a happy new year. How does such a filter work, exactly?
Oh dear, can't have exploding brains. Makes rather a mess...
So true. And then I might find that I wanted it later.
(On Buffy there's a guy who *literally* explodes because he's so worried. Have I mentioned that I love that show? *g*)
Lol--might have come up!
no subject
It is a great feeling indeed!
This might just be one of those fundamental points that fandom as a whole is never going to get around, yes.
*nods* But then there are people who can't stand Rose. Not to mention TW fandom which has a very ugly Gwen-hating faction. :(
That might be wise. I pity the person who wanders into this thread to wish you a happy new year.
LOL!
How does such a filter work, exactly?
You go to this page, and it's all pretty straightforward. You can filter your friends page, f.ex, if it gets too big. And it came in handy back in the day when I ran a Buffy comm, and I had a special filter for the other mods so we could discuss stuff in peace. Anyway, I went and set it up this morning, but then we went out. Made a post with a few things, just so it didn't look all empty...
Anyway, I'm going to run again. Am pretending I'm not here... Sh!
no subject
So I would say that when it comes to TV I can like a lot of different genres and tones pretty equally. More importantly, ever since I got involved in online fandom I have been heavily invested in four very different shows in that way: House, Battlestar Galactica, How I Met Your Mother, and season 5 of Who. Of those four shows, though, I've only been compelled to write (or even read) fic for the latter two, while the others I've confined myself to discussion and analysis even though, on average, I wouldn't say my love for the two shows I do write for is more than my love for the other two. With BSG and House, I've always felt the idea of writing fic somehow unwelcoming or restrictive. I assumed before that it had something to do with how the characters are drawn with such a high level of detail--trying to write them would somehow feel either invasive or just pointless because they were so fully formed within the show while the characters on HIMYM (which is a sitcom) and Who are drawn with a somewhat looser hand, leaving more room for exploration.
But I'm thinking now that the real difference might have something to do with the difference between comedy and tragedy--in that technical sense we were talking about, having to do with the perspectives the shows operate in. House and BSG both take place in essentially tragic universes--House the show is as mired in its main character's tunnel vision as RTD's Who is in Ten's, and BSG is essentially about two civilizations (or one, depending how you look at it) both on a road to nowhere. HIMYM and Moffat's Who, however, both embrace that comic perspective, and I feel like it really opens up the horizons both of the show and of the fic writer. For one thing, I think it's far easier to take the characters from a comedy and write them in tragic mode for awhile than it is to take the characters from a tragedy and write them comedically (even if you can make them funny). I'm not quite sure what it is, but somehow with the characters of a comedy, I really do feel like I can take them wherever I want to, while with the tragic characters, writing them in any way that got away from the tone and feel of the show wouldn't seem right.
Also, interestingly, it just occurred to me that HIMYM is just as much about storytelling in a very literal and explicit way as Moffat's Who is. The whole show is told from the perspective of the main character, who is telling his children the story of how he met their mother. It's all in flashbacks with voiceover and plays very cleverly with the conventions of storytelling (it owes a whole lot to the structural cleverness of Coupling, while taking it a step further by making all its jumping around and alternate perspectives explicitly about storytelling through the commentary of the narrator). Interesting that the people in solitary_summer's post were talking about Moffat's preoccupation with the mechanics and process of storytelling to--they claimed--the detriment of the story itself.
Hmmm, and I have really managed to thought-spew all over this totally unrelated post without having commented on solitary_summer's post yet. I am still collecting thoughts--might just have to make it my own post. Did you see this comparing Moff and Davies to Pepsi and Coke? Slightly different line of thought, but it did give me pause because the writer took the term "humanism," which I think is the lynchpin of what I want to say about Moffat, and applied it to RTD. This will take some careful definitional wrangling, methinks. Ah well, give me a semantic distinction to make a stand on any day: the writer, as far as I can tell, is using 'humanism' to mean, essentially 'yay, people are special!' while I'm using it rather more specifically as a belief in our ability to apply the human mind to create meaning and order in life.
no subject
Would you believe that I once wrote an essay on this? (See? Brain twins!) Although with a different focus than you have here.
I'm not quite sure what it is, but somehow with the characters of a comedy, I really do feel like I can take them wherever I want to, while with the tragic characters, writing them in any way that got away from the tone and feel of the show wouldn't seem right.
Hmm. I'd say read my essay, because I think I agree, but use a different definition. But you may be right - and it's interesting that Buffy (to pick the obvious example) is, despite regularly breaking your heart, also a very funny show. But getting back to the RTD/Moffat thing... I can see the restrictiveness of Ten's story, very much. He's on a downwards spiral the whole time, and when writing fic you have to keep that in mind, or go completely AU. (It's one of the reasons I love TenToo so much - his future is completely open ended.) ETA: Ah screw it, the point of my essay is v. simple: That stories that are character driven are more suited for fic, as opposed to story driven ones. And RTD's era is, in many ways, story driven, since Ten's story is so very specific.
Also, interestingly, it just occurred to me that HIMYM is just as much about storytelling in a very literal and explicit way as Moffat's Who is.
Huh. So it is. (I've seen precisely one episode of it. And then the channel showed several episodes of 'Peep Show', and I'm afraid HIMYM came out worse, just because of the wide gulf between US and UK sit coms... One of them polished and shiny, and the other... not. *g* ETA: HIMYM is beautifully crafted, Peep Show is very well observed. I never meant to put your show down! *pets it*)
Did you see this comparing Moff and Davies to Pepsi and Coke?
I did, and I walked away. It might have been OK if she'd not mentioned the sexism thing, but there are few things that make me more cross than that. So... I walked away.
Ah well, give me a semantic distinction to make a stand on any day: the writer, as far as I can tell, is using 'humanism' to mean, essentially 'yay, people are special!' while I'm using it rather more specifically as a belief in our ability to apply the human mind to create meaning and order in life.
Words are tricky... it's interesting though, that some of my friends who had various problems with RTD, dislike Moffat very much even though he solved the very problems they had. It's very strange.
(Also, I found this icon and had to upload it in your honour! *f*)
no subject
I am rapidly falling under the impression that you have written everything. You could say 'would you believe that I've written a meta fic that uses the migratory patterns of hippos to examine themes of good and evil in season 3 of Angel?' and I would think 'of course you have.'
No coincidentally, I once compiled a list of 50(plus) reasons to write fic (inspired by a HIMYM episode in which the characters write a list of 50 reasons to have sex), which still amuses me.
Ah screw it, the point of my essay is v. simple: That stories that are character driven are more suited for fic, as opposed to story driven ones. And RTD's era is, in many ways, story driven, since Ten's story is so very specific.
That was a great read--thanks for sharing. And, yes, I think we might be essentially on the same page. It is very strange to think of RTD as story-driven (!) given the way he's generally talked up as a character writer, although I wonder if, weirdly, if you are very invested in exploring a particular character or set of characters, you end up needing to be story-driven? The issue I came up against when watching House was the question of why the writers were choosing to introduce us to this particular character at this particular point in his life--there must be something that happens to him in this stretch of time that makes it somehow noteworthy and worth exploring more than some other stretch--and I think ultimately either the writers didn't know what that reason was, or were forced by network pressures to delay dealing with it in order to keep writing this hit show (US network TV conventions can be murder to a good show idea).
Conversely, I think, as you hit upon, if the writers are more interested in world building or just in establishing a sandbox in which to play around and tell some good stories, I think it really frees everyone up on a character exploration front. HIMYM may claim superficially to have a plot-driven point (the story of how Ted met the mother), but by everyone's admission this is just a device for setting up this little world of these five friends so that the writers could tell little stories about them and explore their lives. Result? Fantastic, character-driven comedy.
This does leave me with the question of whether I could write fic for RTDs Who. I think I probably could but only because this little subsection of tragic, character centered, story-driven show is inherently a part of a larger, comedic, open-ended sandbox, and I would be free to bring in elements of the sandbox in order to write it. The broader perspective is *there*, it's just very much pushed aside in the show proper.
ETA: HIMYM is beautifully crafted, Peep Show is very well observed. I never meant to put your show down! *pets it*
Oh, no worries, I didn't think you had. There's no denying British shows have an edge in that way. It's also true, though, that while you can enjoy an episode of HIMYM on a stand-alone basis in the manner of a stereotypical American sitcom, you will be missing half of what's going on. It's very much about character development and a slavish devotion to continuity as much as it is about clever jokes and structuring.
no subject
LOL! And I must point out that I've not written *everything* - but I probably know someone who has. ;)
No coincidentally, I once compiled a list of 50(plus) reasons to write fic (inspired by a HIMYM episode in which the characters write a list of 50 reasons to have sex), which still amuses me.
I... might have read that once, I think, when I was being nosy and was looking through your LJ. I love stuff like that.
It is very strange to think of RTD as story-driven (!) given the way he's generally talked up as a character writer, although I wonder if, weirdly, if you are very invested in exploring a particular character or set of characters, you end up needing to be story-driven?
Hmmm. Dunno. I know that in the Buffy fandom a lot pf people disapproved of the way the show went, so there's a TON of fic that branch off from canon at any point. Literally whole 'verses, as rich and complex as the show itself. (Which is pretty much what I'm doing myself with my Alex verse, which started out because of a single idea and then just refused to stop growing. And I do find it v. interesting to take the characters down very different paths to the show.) Re. RTD in particular, then I think he tends to examine the same kind of issues in all his writing, and so it was maybe inevitable that the Doctor would go in that direction also...
The issue I came up against when watching House was the question of why the writers were choosing to introduce us to this particular character at this particular point in his life--there must be something that happens to him in this stretch of time that makes it somehow noteworthy and worth exploring more than some other stretch--and I think ultimately either the writers didn't know what that reason was, or were forced by network pressures to delay dealing with it in order to keep writing this hit show (US network TV conventions can be murder to a good show idea).
Oh I can see your problems, yes. And I think it's a problem with 'case-of-the-week' shows, generally. On Buffy the Monster of the Week was always tied to the characters' stories (oh the metaphors!) - much like DW - but other shows (medical & detective) tend to focus more on the mystery at the expense of the characters.
Conversely, I think, as you hit upon, if the writers are more interested in world building or just in establishing a sandbox in which to play around and tell some good stories, I think it really frees everyone up on a character exploration front.
Just look at Harry Potter...
this is just a device for setting up this little world of these five friends so that the writers could tell little stories about them and explore their lives. Result? Fantastic, character-driven comedy.
And a very good set-up it is!
This does leave me with the question of whether I could write fic for RTDs Who. I think I probably could but only because this little subsection of tragic, character centered, story-driven show is inherently a part of a larger, comedic, open-ended sandbox, and I would be free to bring in elements of the sandbox in order to write it. The broader perspective is *there*, it's just very much pushed aside in the show proper.
Or do like me and make your own AU sandbox... Or, there's TenToo, which has a lot of possibilities!
that while you can enjoy an episode of HIMYM on a stand-alone basis in the manner of a stereotypical American sitcom, you will be missing half of what's going on. It's very much about character development and a slavish devotion to continuity as much as it is about clever jokes and structuring.
Oh I'm SURE - continuity tends to be half the fun. :)
no subject
You didn't miss that much. I wasn't particularly impressed myself, but you never know where the right spark of inspiration is going to come from.
Words are tricky... it's interesting though, that some of my friends who had various problems with RTD, dislike Moffat very much even though he solved the very problems they had. It's very strange.
Which begs the question of whether they really wanted the problems solved /catty Or, of course, it's possible that their problem with Moffat is something unrelated. It struck me when reading comments on 'The End of Time' that a lot of people wanted RTD to resolve those problems for *himself*--particularly wanted Ten to find some kind of resolution *as Ten*--and perhaps they are left feeling like Moffat is a bit of an interloper, barging in and imposing a very big change that they don't necessarily object to in principle, but don't quite like in implementation because the break was a little too sudden and the joins between the Ten and Eleven not immediately obvious.
(Also, I found this icon and had to upload it in your honour! *f*)
=D Thank you. I saw that one! It is very striking. Ah, the ghost of icons past.
no subject
Very true. And as it happens one of my friends (with similar views) had a similar kind of post, which I went and rambled all over... (She's of the 'I want the Doctor to be the protagonist' mindset, which is fair enough, but she - oddly - finds Eleven to be ill-defined. Like I said, I rambled. *sigh*)
Which begs the question of whether they really wanted the problems solved /catty
Me-ow! But I think there's a kernel of truth, actually. RTD is very ambiguous, and a lot of people liked the way his writing challenged them.
a lot of people wanted RTD to resolve those problems for *himself*--particularly wanted Ten to find some kind of resolution *as Ten*--and perhaps they are left feeling like Moffat is a bit of an interloper, barging in and imposing a very big change that they don't necessarily object to in principle, but don't quite like in implementation because the break was a little too sudden and the joins between the Ten and Eleven not immediately obvious.
*nods a lot* Apparently Six, immediately after regeneration, tried to strangle his companion (something dear Five would NEVER do), so it's not like sharp shifts haven't happened before... I think it's more that Eleven stopped angsting. And since Ten's been angsting for... 3 years, it is a bit abrupt... Btw did you see this post? Well not the post, but the first comment, which hit the nail on the head *perfectly*:
So here's how I think of the transition from Ten to Eleven. In "The End of Time," when Ten dies, it is with one last big melodramatic, overwrought, overly emotional BANG (because that is how RTD rolls, and I think green_maia was 100% right when she says RTD wanted to write the Doctor's real death and couldn't).
And then he wakes up as Eleven - AND IT'S FINE. Better than fine, really. Sure, the TARDIS is crashing, but it's not like that hasn't happened before, and then he meets this awesome little Scottish girl, and really, things are fine. And the Doctor goes, "Holy crap on a cracker, I was mad. Let's not do that again!"
no subject
no subject
And a Happy New Year to you too! :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Happpy New Year to you too!
no subject
And thank you! :)