Just watched Innocence again; love the poignancy and commentary on feminism and adulthood in the episode. Just when things are at their worst i.e. growing up, that's when one is at their strongest and doesn't wallow in sympathetic remorse. (Interesting how the previous episode, albeit a good one, revels in soap opera melodrama, and everything is so emotional exasperating and painful. Innocence's reply is "You're so young.") The feminism and maturation are linked so beautifully here precisely because the plot serves as a perfect foundation for the intermingling of those two themes-the saint of a boyfriend who ended up simply using you for sex. The fact that really it’s not Angel that's doing this to Buffy but Angelus shows your grace for metaphor. You can can have Angel be an sob without permanently making him one and disallowing his character any depth in the future. This is why Buffy not only works superlatively well as television but truly brought the art of the metaphor (the supernatural standing in for everyday life) to the forefront of the fantasy genre-the fantasy with depth era that we live in has benefited from your influence. If you want to tell a specific story but feel like you can't do it in your overarching arc, whether you're working in television or film, Buffy shows one that they can not only do that, but that these episodes are generally the best ones-the ones where if even a non fan watched they couldn't help but notice the craft and brilliance of the writing; of the specific story. It's the moments of stray comments away from the drama of the episode, the moments that step away from plot and fantasy simply when a character truthfully speaks, something that is special amidst the beautiful cahos of this show, that get you right where they need to. You can practically feel yourself tingling with awareness of how special this particular script that you're watching is when these moments occur; it’s the moments you're left with after the episode disappears from memory. This kind of stuff doesn't go away-it’s too painful, haunting, accurate to the awareness on your and the characters that you love part that you can't put it any better if you wrote an essay on the themes being noticed. These are not depthful themes for a writer to be proud to have utilized in his script. It's the moments in life when you see who you really are, where you're really going, and why you must leave behind childish things. It’s full on awareness. This is the essence of the constant evolution this show is famous for. How could Giles remain the paternalistic square constantly criticizing Buffy and not allowing her to make her own mistakes i.e. being an adult, after Innocence? How can Willow have any hope in her childish adoration of someone who never possibly will be interested in dating her after Innocence? Willow’s triumph here is that she finally commits herself to a mature relationship. These moments of realization, of literally transforming yourself are terrifying; just as terrifying as Angelus. And yet the brilliance of this episode is that the pain and terror passes, and that’s because growing up is becoming who you truly are-that person that you were terrified to show to others and to yourself precisely because society conditioned you not to reveal this individual. Callowness, authoritarianism, lack of empathy particularly for the opposite sex, are the qualities being criticized in your Innocence. It’s no wonder this show couldn’t stay in high school.
The complete deniability of the good that has come out of technology makes this article suspect in my eyes. To completely eradicate the internet, a place where the easing of accessibility in regards to the obtaining of information has helped rather than hindered everyone's knowledge base, seems totally asinine to me. The problem is that this is an intellectuals completely subscribing into his idea without seeing the complexities of the problem. Yes, obviously there are problems in regards to the edification of how to properly utilize technology, i.e how to discern how to traverse the multitude of information out there, how to know that you've been sold a lie that looks incredibly efficient. It's these kinds of questions that led to the creation of the internet in the first place. I think the lesson here is the questions cant stopped being asked because once they cease, for the sake of the convenience afforded by technology, we become perfect corporate tools-capitalist non thinkers. Market obsolescence rather than technology in and of itself, is the problem here. I do agree with the writer in his distrust of corporations but the anarchist thought of eradicating tech is actually a defeatist position that's much worse in the long run. More major technical innovations should be worked on and the gadgetry that represents nothing in regards to the evolutionary developments of tech should be derided. Look at the greedy corporations profiting from the naivete of all those dumb consumerists out there who don't know the wonderful attributes of twitter and what they are doing doing to the environment, hulk smash. What a dumb egotist. Can any one smell this guy's superiority complex? And you want to talk about undemocratic tendencies? Since he doesn't see the internet as a major leap ("too many problems!"-yes, that's why reanalysis and additions and figuring out better methods should be applied) he simply wants to eradicate technology. Forget about film everybody, who needs that measly art form when movies have gotten so bad anyway? This is a throw up your arms spaz position. It's also an example of someone who doesn't want to properly solve the problem, and at the same time doesn't want to implicate himself in anyway because he has such contempt for people like, you know, himself. He points the finger at the other guy rather than figuring out why figure pointing is going on in the first place. What a wonderful position to be in. What the inevitable outcome is from non-accountibility and trying to cover up the evidence, or having a defeatist attitude, or both is that there is a side effect of more negative outcomes. In fact the outcomes grow larger than the initial problem. Hey, at least this guy is trying to help the environment and eradicate corporate greed. That's like a cherry on top of the apocalyptic cupcake.
The idea behind a show evolving i actually find suspect. This probably has to do with the fact that only on specific occasions do I find the format integral to an artists conception. (Usually its integral to tv makers but I rarely think tv makers are artists.) To me, to keep a show popular you gotta have a really cool "depth-like" facade. In relation to Breaking Bad, a show constantly praised and advertized mind you (there's an implicit process here in my opinion) for the way it evolves, I think this aspect of the show makes people think they are watching great art, but they aren't. This is a show who's only relevancy is how well done it is, i.e. how good the acting is, how suspenseful it is, lean without pretension, never falling for the pitfalls that other shows fall into (you can do this by simply being superficially different from other shows) and how characters don't fall into the pifalls of being stagnant for the sake of keeping the format and retaining the franchise. Now, like I said on rare exception do I find that tv is truly great, and a Whedon or a Simon show gains from evolving, but that's because this is their process and it works superlatively. (It's also because their shows are art and benefit from the elongated format of tv-they can break franchise convention precisely because their story benefits from the elongated tv format. Why should Buffy be stagnant?) However, what if you never had much of a show to begin with? Well that's most "quality" television. So you deceive your audience and yourself into believing that this is great television precisely because it evolves. Does it truly evolve or does it just change and rot, or merely constantly hit different spots not on the dart board? If you're on the board why change it up? Particularly if your show is good but not great? Remember good tv shows? Their basicness was appealing in that they weren't claiming they were anything else other than what they truly were, and what they were were pretty good shows-shows that made you believe in the medium not as the greatest art form ever but simply as a good art form that could surprise you in sometimes pulling the rug out from under you and giving you quality. They didn't lie into telling you that there's some great arc that you need to pay attention to-i.e. stick around and keep watching us. They said, stick around and watch for the good amid the bad, which in the end is the ultimate aspect of the medium. A good show wasn't a conception but simply something that you liked watching because of what it represented at its core, not as a complete entity. As a complete entity it was messy with infrequent tonalities of quality and consistency-it was television. Television now doesn't try to be television-its television in the guise of greatness. Now you're probably saying that I'm unfair in that I don't want people to like Mad Men or Breaking Bad, ect. It's not that I want them to not like the shows, it's that I want people to simply admit that they liked a certain show for basic reasons like they like watching so and so every week or they like the atmosphere or what the show represents and does for you-not try to legitimize their reaction with platitudes about the incredible depth of the show. The X Files is not a show of any great depth but I enjoy the Hell out of it. Breaking Bad is not a show of any great depth but it sure as Hell pretends to be, and I sure as Hell don't enjoy it. (It's indicative of unenjoyable non-depth like shows that they have to claim they have depth because they have nothing else going for em. The same is true of all art.) If I was Chris Carter, I sure as Hell would be pissed off right about now because his success looks dowdy next to these towering infernos.
The book is sexuality as apotheosis-definitely not a turn on and definitely not a book with a rich sense of characterization-the characters here merely represent ideas and thesis about human nature-but most certainly a book that is a utopia of European descent
Why does Kundera have to equivocate everything in The Unbearable Lightness of Being? Isn't it enough just to state things that occur in the book unabashedly. The story could still be about a man in paralysis without the tone indicating this. A reader may not be even aware upon reading the novel of the conflicted state of Tomas, upon the conflicted state of all the characters, because the author suffers from the same conflicts. Conflicts that to the normal unabashed soul don't mean a hill of beans in this town. It's the oh woe is me sensitive nature of the highly literate to not want to commit to anything, even to a bit of fun sexual naughtiness, and to equivocate that banality poetically is what Kundera is all about as a novelist.
Why does he see being a fan as something so unorthodox and weird? Even if he likes fans, why does he have to see that connotation applied to them? His feeling are unorthodox and are going to give an unintended negative connotation to a simple pertinent need we all have within us.