(no subject)

[redbrunja]

Finished my taxes. It is actually embarrassing how long it's taken me to freaking sit down and do them, considering how easy they were and the fact that for the first time ever, I'm actually getting money back. (Seriously, I was at the 'let me reorganize my bathroom drawers to avoid doing taxes stage of procrastination).

I feel like I blinked and today vanished - part of that was because I was up super-late watching The Hunger Games (again, a friend had free IMAX tickets)* and part of that was because I basically woke up, did errands, and then spent TWO FUCKING HOURS with a Century Link technician and my landlady in what was the most awkward, stressful internet repair job of my entire life (short version: my landlady hated the tech, the tech wanted to tell me his entire life story).

I'm now painting my nails to de-stress. (OPI What A Broad on my toes, Edin-Burgundy on my nails - this color isn't really a burgundy, but the best blood-red color I've found).

12_12_12 had a great (and also depressing) meta post about the kind of love stories television shows are choosing to tell these days, which prompted me to ask: flist, can you give me examples of currently airing shows where characters in a romance choose the larger picture or their personal ideals over their loved on, without this being textually seen as Not Loving There S.O. Enough?

*So, on the drive home from my second viewing of THG,

I was got to talking about Johanna, and how she and Haymitch (SO MUCH HAYMITCH) are both fractured mirrors of who Katniss would be if she lost more people earlier in her life. And I have to admit, the changes they made to Haymitch make me kind of sad, because as funny as the line about spilling his drink on his new pants is, it means that movie!Haymitch is an entirely different beast than book!Haymitch, who would never have said that. (Tangent: I lot of really cool Effie/Haymtich prompts have popped up online, which I would kind of love to take a crack at, but I don't feel like I have a good handle on Haymitch a.t.m.)

Comments

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I was trying to explain to someone that Haymitch was great, but he wasn't Haymitch, and they kept looking at me like I was a crazy person.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

...whereas I understand EXACTLY what you mean. ^_^

[abvj.livejournal.com]

I think if I had to pick my biggest complaint about THG movie-adaptation it would be what they did to Haymitch's character. Which isn't to say that it was terrible, it wasn't. Movie!Haymitch was just not how I pictured book!Haymitch and for me that created a huge disconnect. But, movie!Haymitch also brought to light so Effie/Haymitch feelings I've been having, too, which is not totally unwelcome. So, yeah. Not terrible.

Thank you so much for linking to that meta. I might be shopping that around my flist, because the author is super intelligent and draws so much apt references to how love stories should be represented and how they are these days. It's not the same, and it has been something I've been thinking about for a while now, but could never articulate into words. So, yeah, thanks for linking that.

My current & forever OTP - Sophie/Nate from Leverage are a good example of what a relationship should be. The writers did an excellent job of breaking down these characters and deconstructing the relationship they had so they could make certain choices and move towards being the people that could sustain a relationship together. They had to better themselves and choose themselves time and time again to get to that point, and it was just really lovely to watch play out. You don't see a lot of that on TV anymore which is quite sad.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

Which isn't to say that it was terrible, it wasn't. Movie!Haymitch was just not how I pictured book!Haymitch and for me that created a huge disconnect. But, movie!Haymitch also brought to light so Effie/Haymitch feelings I've been having, too, which is not totally unwelcome. So, yeah. Not terrible.

Yeah, I'm in this weird place where I feel like the Haymitch on screen isn't a character I feel confident enough to write but at the same time I am curious about Effie/Haymitch.

My current & forever OTP - Sophie/Nate from Leverage are a good example of what a relationship should be. The writers did an excellent job of breaking down these characters and deconstructing the relationship they had so they could make certain choices and move towards being the people that could sustain a relationship together. They had to better themselves and choose themselves time and time again to get to that point, and it was just really lovely to watch play out. You don't see a lot of that on TV anymore which is quite sad.

You know what's funny? I have the complete opposite feelings about Nathan and Sophie. Just goes to show how different ships and dynamics read differently depending on your pov.

[cynchick.livejournal.com]

I would say TVD has love that is strong and genuine but not all-consuming. Stefan does it, and Caroline/Tyler both put the one they love aside because they have to. Also in Nikita, Nikita/Michael definitely prioritize the greater good.

But this is not new. True Love Conquers All is the oldest trope in the universe and it will never be any less prevalent in the way we look at romance.

Also that meta seems less of a meta and more of a hatefest on the CW and a lauding of Buffy/Angel- while completely ignoring all the problems in other relationships on that series, like Buffy and Spike. I get their point, but I also think the author should broaden their tv-watching scope before assuming what happens on the CW (a network aimed at 16-24yr-olds) happens everywhere. A meta on the problematic perception of romance on tv should be just that.

And at the end she pretty much negates her argument by pointing out that it's today's viewers who look at things in this way. Today's young adults are very different animals than the young adults of ten years ago. I know, I was one. Buffy was the same age as me and I grew up watching it. I grew up during the third wave of feminism. Girls today are living in tail-end of the backlash, and everything they are taught to want out of life is affected by that. Basically, television is only a small part of the problem.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

But this is not new. True Love Conquers All is the oldest trope in the universe and it will never be any less prevalent in the way we look at romance.


This is true; but we can hope, you know? I'd really love to get some variations in the kind of love stories we are told, and I think that - especially when looking at non-romance novels, I can think of a lot more examples of romances that talk about different types of love than just True Love Conquers all.

Today's young adults are very different animals than the young adults of ten years ago. I know, I was one. Buffy was the same age as me and I grew up watching it. I grew up during the third wave of feminism. Girls today are living in tail-end of the backlash, and everything they are taught to want out of life is affected by that. Basically, television is only a small part of the problem.

That is unfortunately very, very true. It's very sad, because I'm looking to the same media sources I did as a teenager to find entertainment, and the field is often dominated by narratives that REALLY do not appeal.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

And at the end she pretty much negates her argument by pointing out that it's today's viewers who look at things in this way.

I phrased that badly: I didn't mean that it was a problem of perception, but more that if a male character on one of today's shows was suddenly thrust into a plotline where he started acting like Angel in the Angel-Faith-Buffy SL, viewers wouldn't buy it: b/c the preceding canon, and characterization, and setup for the ship, wouldn't have "prepared" the viewer to interpret his actions correctly. There has to be the right...the right atmosphere in place for it, IMO. I think that if viewers were presented with the exact canon for BtVS/AtS now, audiences would buy it. The problem is that I think it wouldn't happen in the current TV atmosphere in the first place.

Also that meta seems less of a meta and more of a hatefest on the CW and a lauding of Buffy/Angel- while completely ignoring all the problems in other relationships on that series, like Buffy and Spike.

Oh, I've ranted about Buffy/Spike a-plenty in the past. But the thing with that ship is that I think it's a fascinating "tracker" for the way the "tail-end of the backlash," as you put it, played out in real time. The show began with Spike threatening to stake Drusilla to "prove" his "love" for Buffy and Buffy treating that with the ridicule it deserved, then in S6 moved onto an actual honest presentation of the kind of obsession that Spike thought was love and how that was harmful for Buffy and how she got pulled into it b/c of PTSD, and then in S7 presented the exact same relationship as "romantic": whereas a lot of shows now just begin with S7 Spuffy.

I get their point, but I also think the author should broaden their tv-watching scope before assuming what happens on the CW (a network aimed at 16-24yr-olds) happens everywhere. A meta on the problematic perception of romance on tv should be just that.

That's a good point. I chose BtVS and BA as an example b/c I think that's what my flist would be most familiar with. Thing is, I can think of lots of shows that did a good job from a similar time period (or at least, better than shows generally do now.) Mark Greene and Carol Hathaway's friendship on ER, Doug Ross's friendship with Susan Lewis and contentious relationship with Kerry Weaver on the same show, Charlie Salinger on Party of Five and his relationships with his sisters Claudia and Julia (and how that related to his romance with Kirsten), etc.

These days, I'm hard pressed to come up with similar examples on any other shows I know: look at the latest horrific plot development on Fringe, for example. Even on Once Upon a Time, which I like b/c it has lots of men and women interacting in non-romantic ways, and has significant relationships between men and women that are completely platonic, still wouldn't Go There the way AtS did with Angel and Faith, IMO. The Good Wife irritated me with the way it handled Will/Alicia. The same goes for Grey's Anatomy and its attitude to workplace relationships. etc.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

PS: ITA, though, that Caroline/Tyler comes closest to the kind of ship I miss on TV and want to see more of, which is why they're still my fangirly-OTP despite Tyler's offscreening. Sigh.

[zombie_boogie.livejournal.com]

I liked a lot of things about Woody Harrelson's Haymitch (one of my favourite added scenes was Haymitch watching the Capitol children play with swords), but I don't think he was nearly as dark as book!Haymitch. I just re-read Catching Fire and I think that's when the really dark, haunted, nasty elements of his personality come to the fore so hopefully we'll see more of that in the second film (I think Woody's capable of it).

ETA: In answer to your question, I guess you could argue that on P&R at the beginning of the season Leslie chose the "larger picture" over her relationship with Ben, and I don't think the show tried to say that it was that she just didn't love him enough... but then they got back together so it's kind of a moot point (which I don't mind, because I'm perfectly fine with Leslie Knope Having It All).

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

but I don't think he was nearly as dark as book!Haymitch.

*nods*

Yeah, book!Haymitch was VERY far down the road to total self-destruction.

[bitterbird.livejournal.com]

taxes are not fun but yay for getting money back!

really interesting meta discussion post!

[bellonablack.livejournal.com]

I feel like a cheater since I like pairings that are opposed on principles and still flirt. Um. I can't really say, I think there's this pull to displaying unconditional love even when they kill your loved ones and put their heads on spikes. I love pairings where people are comforted and understand their mutual darkness, but that's too far.

I don't mind selfishly chosing your loved over other people's values, but not your own.

[qualapec.livejournal.com]

(Woot for seeing the Hunger Games twice. I'm going again tomorrow for a friend's b-day)

I think your thoughts on the difference between book!Haymitch and movie!Haymitch were really interesting. Since I read the book after the trailers for the movie came out, I always pictured him with Woody Harrolson's mannerisms and voice, so that difference wasn't there for me between the movie and the book.

One big difference that I think the movie had - it was obvious Haymitch was suffering from something on the PTSD spectrum. One scene in particular really stood out to me. When he was watching the two little children in the Capitol chasing each other with fake swords, the look on his face really struck me as a nasty flashback. A lot of the things he did, his jokes, the digs at Effie, the drinking, all very obviously concealed that thin veneer of self-loathing.

Granted, that's all obvious in the book as well, I just felt like the movie emphasized his trauma instead of his rebellion, whereas I think the book emphasized his plot to change the Hunger Games so that two Tributes had a chance of winning, and how he plotted that from the beginning.

[fairest1.livejournal.com]

Well, there's Graceling(a YA book) where the heroine went "I am not marrying or having kids. Ever. Even if my husband gives me every freedom, it'd be something granted to me, rather than something I take for myself."
To which the hero responded "Hey, not gonna push you. You can easily kick my ass in a fight, for one thing. Would sex with birth control be an option?"

With an end result that they had sexyfuntimes while also letting the vital plot-related events take priority over their relationship.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

I have just picked up this book to re-read! Very excited. ^_^ It's the one I point to as a shining example of what fantasy should be like, and ugh, the relationship is done so well here! I admit, I choked in hysterical laughter when first recced it because PO, LOLWUT, but once I got into it, that didn't even register as ridic anymore. (when I told my mother, though, she started singing Tellytubbies at me...)

I just love that they're not at all like 99% of other romances between young characters in fiction, where their love story >>>>>> everything else, and the way the chick is able to put the safety of their country above one person (iirc) makes me happy.

Also, the lack of angst due to his compromise was great! I just roll my eyes at the people- mainly parents- who decried this book because ohnoes, premarital sex, shockhorror! They're the WORST role models, look at how immoral they are! Riiight, because a respectful relationship between equals is inferior to, say, Twilight. *scoffs*

Oh, btw, I just found out today that Bitterblue is apparently being released in May! SO THRILLED, OMG. I've been waiting for this damn book for years, I really hope it lives up to my expectations. Fire didn't, unforch, so I think I need to throttle my hope and just lower my standards so that it's not at a disadvantage. BUT BITTERBLUE! :D

[fairest1.livejournal.com]

I never watched Teletubbies so I accepted the name more readily. And Po is awesome enough to handle any name.

The bit with the ring is the closest he got to arguing her decision, and that was really more "Well, I'm gonna love and respect you as much as if we were married anyway, so there." than anything.

And yayness for Bitterblue. I think Fire's weakness was the utter lack of Kasta and Po.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

*nods*

How in control of her body the heroine of graceling was was one of my favorite things about that novel.