Text 14020, 150 rader
Skriven 2007-04-26 05:32:35 av Vorlonagent (383.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Attn JMS: The five stages of grief and  "FALLEN SON: THE     DEATH 
===============================================================================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:03iv23ld9cl9i829fhnn3sea3p1mpbaanh@4ax.com...

> I don't know that my criteria are as systematic as yours. I mean, when
> I eat a good burger, my stomach says to me "mmmm," and when I eat a
> fine steak, it perks up and says "wow." And that's the way I react to
> art as well. A book can be a "good read" or it can be boring or bad or
> it can be great. As long as it amuses and engages me, I'm OK with it,
> and the more the better. Which isn't to say that I don't nitpick and
> analyze, just that I don't start with any particular expectation.

I don't either.  The movie or book or whatever tells me which rules to 
process it under.  I don't look at the trailers or the back cover and plan 
it.  It's a feedback loop based on the experience.


>>That's what I mean by loopholes.  You characters don't need to be as vivid
>>if you telegraph to me that the show is not intended for them to be.
>>Farscape is a good example of this.  Especially the early seasons.  It's
>>supposed to be fun so it gets judged to a different standard.  B5, on the
>>other hand, is intentionally serious and dramatic, which means I expect 
>>more
>>characterization and care from B5 than Farscape.  And that's why I dislike
>>Sinclair, Gideon, Galen and...no *especially*...Byron.  Why also BSG
>>ultimately failed.  It presented itself such that it was judged by the
>>standards I judge B5 on.
>>
>>I work of a variant of "Fuzzy Pink Niven's Law" which says in brief "never
>>eat an inferior hot fudge sundae".  The food you eat may concern you or 
>>your
>>dressmeaker, but the point here is that if you're going to consume the
>>calories you should get a good bang for your buck.
>
> I /wish/ I could do that, but I can't find enough good stuff. (Niven
> should know, since IMO his later output doesn't come up to his earlier
> works.) And you can only reread or rewatch something so many times.

*sigh*  yes.  The Gripping Hand was dreadful.  What little I read of it 
before I put the book down for good.  But then I would put Mote in God's Eye 
on the list of "not all that" that other people rave about.  My reaction to 
Mote wasn't as negative as, say, Ender's Game, but there's a point that 
seemed such a glaring faux pas that I lost suspension of disbelief and was 
left with a mixed view rather than the positive one others have.

Niven was ever best at short stories.

Me, if I can't find good SF reading, I find something else.  I see no reason 
to slog through inferior crap.  If you get something out of it, sure...


> Besides, quality isn't my only criterion. Bach and Shakespeare are
> well-nigh inexhaustible, but there are times when I'm in the mood for
> something lighter or more contemporary or just plain new and
> different, even if it doesn't change my life or send chills down my
> spine. But perhaps that segues into what you're saying -- my
> requirements for a spy movie aren't the same as my requirements for a
> symphony.

That's why I have more than one set of rules.  But there's still a well-done 
or badly done comedy or any kind of light fare.  My criterion for "well 
done" in light fare may bear only limited resembelence to mine for high 
drama.  But I know what's good and what's bad and when it's bad, I turn the 
channel.


>>My list here is a list of inferior hot fudge sundaes that other people 
>>rave
>>about.
>>
>>> (Having tried my hand at character creation, I can say that it's a
>>> /lot/ harder than it seems to create someone that's not a paper
>>> cutout. For me, anyway, and I suspect for the many writers who copy
>>> and recopy the rare originals, the Ahabs and the Falstaffs and the
>>> Sherlocks and the Hucks.)
>>
>>The best often take on a life of their own.  The ones that stay shallow 
>>are
>>the ones that remain intellectualized concepts.
>
> That's an interesting point.

In an extreme case, Alan Moore supposedly met his character John Constentine 
walking out of a bar when Moore was going in.  In planning Sandman #7, Neil 
Gaiman an a few others supposedly got a waitress at a restaurant that fit 
his image of Death perfectly.


>>I'm not saying that a cgaarcter driven to atone for a sin can't be good.
>>I'm saying Byron wasn't.  Byron wallowed in his guilt.  Byron let it eat 
>>out
>>his soul.  Byron chose  an easy death instead of standing up and fighting
>>for what was important to him.
>
> I don't know, because I've never experienced that level of guilt. I
> mean, I've never killed anyone except for that cute little girl, and
> she deserved it for making a mean face at me. What would it be like to
> destroy a ship full of innocent civilians? I can only infer from my
> limited exposure to others. I've known Vietnam veterans who were
> tormented years after the fact by some of the choices they had to
> make.

I'm sure.  I'm talking about how Byron dealt with it, not what he had to 
deal with.


>>> Guess you'd have to ask JMS. But while I know what you're saying, and,
>>> really, felt somewhat the same way when I first learned about it, I do
>>> think it's in keeping with the series premise, which is that
>>> everything /is/ tied in with the Vorlons and the Shadows, who have
>>> after all been meddling in our affairs since we were mice.
>>
>>And nothing new happens everywhere?  Nothing unique springs up in some
>>half-forgotten backwater or lonely outpost of civilization?  There is
>>diveristy in the universe and origins should reflect it, not fly in the 
>>face
>>of it.
>>
>>Are the Vorlons or Shadows responsible for the Soul Hunters?  Just asking
>>that question threatens to rob them of half their identity, just as the
>>Shadow origin robs the technomages of half theirs.  (the magic part)
>
> Well, again, I'm not really arguing. But I think JMS had something
> mythic in mind here: the old races aren't /just/ races, they're
> stand-ins for God (Lorien), good (the Vorlons), and evil (the
> Shadows). Or moralizers and Machiavels. The idea is that they had a
> galactic reach. Since they represent philosophies, they're something
> like primary colors -- everywhere.

They're stand-ins for "the gods" to be sure.

But in the classic myths, the gods aren't the source of every last hero.  To 
make every lat thing an aspect of the First Ones, you are selling everybody 
else short.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent

"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."

"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)