my sandbox is a strange place
So caught this meme by way of fannishliss, and it seems a fairly fun way to get to know someone a bit better through the important things, and some of the questions tickled me.
( welcome to mah sandbox, sorry about the editorializing )
( welcome to mah sandbox, sorry about the editorializing )
even for ME these questions are a little too OTP-focused.
Right? Chuh.
I think I'm having my very first alternaship
Congratulations! *throws confetti* How does it feel? What led you to prefer that over canon? (I haven't read it, so if you can't explain without that I understand. I don't care about spoilers though, so don't worry about that.)
Community's Jeff and Annie.
Oh man. I ... don't really deal with Community all that well. My brother enjoys it, and we watch episodes together sometimes, but I think it's just one of those shows I don't gel with. I do enjoy the dean, though. Heh.
But my experience so far has been the complete opposite. Everyone, particularly yourself, has been a delight!
Aw, thank you! And I know what you mean. I'm pretty careful about where I play for that reason too. I think certain types of fandom also lend themselves to a calmer environment; movie fandoms are drastically different from tv in terms of volume and progression, and while they both have their advantages, tv is obviously the one where revelations in canon can cause huge upheavals. Whereas movies, even series or trilogies, just don't have that level of, I don't know, torque I guess? Shipping wars just don't seem to get nearly so urgent, or have nearly as much fodder for alternate shipping interpretations.
Cavepilots
Unless Ron Moore is involved, in which case AU is a self-preservation technique.
Case in point.
Jeff and Britta maybe? I really like the idea of them
I invite you to elaborate. I'm curious about how people receive Community, because they're obviously connecting with it in some way I don't get naturally. So what's the draw in this case for you?
Reply
Fo shiz. And let's be honest, there's nothing like time for letting an obsession really build to explosive heights. And there's nothing like serialised television for that.
How does it feel?
Well... I won't lie to you Monkeytwin, it feels painful and disconcerting. And kinda makes me sad. It's not really recommending itself to me!
Pretty easy to explain why I prefer it, though, because it's for pretty tropey reasons:
Essentially, bloke she ends up with = has 'loved' (it's teen fiction. Normal people would say 'been infatuated with') her from afar since he heard her sing at school when they were like five. They never speak until they both get picked for the Hunger Games killathon, then he basically takes it on himself to protect her, always, prepared to do this at the expense even of his own life. But he basically worships her. Like, 'on a pedastal' worships, rather than that having a basis in anything real and grounded. In fairness, I should add that when they were both 11, he gave her bread once which stopped her and her family from starving. So.
Guy I prefer her with = has been her best friend for years, but recently realised he feels something more. Knows her better than anyone - and loves her for all that (this is really the key point for me, because she is pretty awesome, but not always straightforwardly likeable [which obviously makes her more interesting]), protects her family when she can't, is in her corner but also challenges her, and is a fucken awesome resistance fighter...
You know... it's only as I type that that I realise he, as a character, is more relevant to my interests. That might also have something to do with it!! *laughs at self*
But primarily because, in my mind, he sees and loves her for who she really is... I prefer him. But hey. It's teen fiction. And for all kinds of 'unconditional love conquers all' blah blah blerugh reasons that appeal to teenagers, I can see why it went as it went.
Also? I think the author really only had one book in her. She progressively runs out of steam through the second and third books. That might be part of it too...
And that's probably more than you ever wanted to know about The Hunger Games!
For my next trick.... COMMUNITY ANALYSIS!! :)
Reply
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. :( Alternashipping does require a certain fortitude toward canon (or compartmentalisation) that can take a while to build up, if you think it worthwhile. If you do, and you feel long-winded discussion will help with that, let me know. ;)
But from what you describe, I would probably be shipping the same as you. It sounds like the one you prefer is a more mature concept of a relationship, as you say, the kind that doesn't really appeal to teenage audiences. Being admired from afar is so much more exotic and mysterious and enticing when your stage of life is all about exploration and (seemingly) consequence-free experimentation. The unknown just holds an allure that the known never can. Whereas once you've made enough mistakes and experienced enough consequences, that kind of set up doesn't make you feel tingly and excited, but very very cautious. Sure, it could turn out great, especially when you've got the author in your corner to make sure of it, but in reality it's much more likely not to.
I realise he, as a character, is more relevant to my interests.
He sounds pretty badass. I like him. :)
I think the author really only had one book in her. She progressively runs out of steam through the second and third books.
Mm, it really is the way of things a lot of the time. If only marketing allowed for one-hit wonders, but money is money I guess. Alas!
Reply
Oh, I'm ok! :D Honestly, it did leave me in a bit of a funk for a day or two... but that may also have been the fever! But yes, should I make a habit of this alternashipping business, I shall come crying to you! Fair warning!! hee. :)
The unknown just holds an allure that the known never can. Whereas once you've made enough mistakes and experienced enough consequences, that kind of set up doesn't make you feel tingly and excited, but very very cautious.
Oh monkeytwin, I do so like it when you come along and make my point for me in a much more eloquent fashion. *g* I think you'd like him too. And yes, ah capitalism. Alas indeed! hehe
Reply
This is such an interesting one. Some friends I was SURE would love Community are either 'meh' about it, or actively dislike it. Others who I'd assumed would hate it, in fact love it passionately. It seems to split people down interesting and unexpected lines.
I, for one, really love it. I enjoy the silly tropey-ness, I adore (some of) the characters, I enjoy the winks at the audience and the easter eggs, I like the homage-eps... and fundamentally I just usually find it really funny. I'm ok with it not maintaining a BritishOffice-esque unlikeable character thing, letting them be a bit more likeable-warm-and-fuzzy along the lines of an AmericanOffice maybe? But not quite...idk. And for me, it also holds up on rewatching.
Jeff and Britta I liked because, hmm... let me think. I like the matchup of two people who are fundamentally pretty self-absorbed but in totally opposing ways, if that makes sense. And that, I think, is inclined to bring out the best in both of them.
I think both Jeff and Britta are self-absorbed because they've been let down and hurt and don't want to rely on anyone. We know Jeff's dad screwed him up in that respect, I would LOVE to know what did it to Britta.
But where Jeff's self-absorption got channelled into douchey, selfish, out-for-himself-over-others-ness, Britta's got channeled into dogmatic-saving-the-world-itis. I think the two of them together brings out the compassion in Jeff, and the pragmatism in Britta and makes them both more rounded, and happier. They're a match for each other, too, in the sense that they challenge each other. Ultimately, though, that dynamic doesn't have to die if they're not romantically involved. Which is why I can live with that not happening, but I still think it's a shame :)
Oh! And! ETA - they both have hard enough shells to survive each other's sharper edges without being hurt. Which is important, because they do have the capacity to be a bit spikey.
Last word on Britta: I adore her and I adore her silliness/ridiculousness. But they've made her progressively sillier as the seasons have gone on, which I kinda resent. Kind of like JD in Scrubs. They both started out as more three-dimensional, but were then sort of regressed to being the silliest characteristics of themselves. Caricatures. I hope they reverse that trend with her under the new show runners. We'll see. (I've just realised that's also my essential Newsroom complaint... I may have stumbled on a pet trope hate here!)
I DON'T like Jeff and Annie, partly just because I like J/B more, but partly because the douchy, prickish elements of Jeff, when put with someone who's theoretically as young and naive as Annie's supposed to be, makes him.... creepy, actually. For me, it makes him creepy. It feels almost exploitative. Ugh. Really don't like it. I understand why all the teenage girls who watch the show and identify with Annie and have crushes on Joel McHale like it... but no.
On the other hand... what is it about the show that rubs you up the wrong way? I always find it surprising when people who like things I like DON'T like Community, so I'm genuinely curious! :)
Reply
Yeah, it does. I can see that. And the point about them being able to handle each other's spikeyness is well made too.
Last word on Britta: I adore her and I adore her silliness/ridiculousness. But they've made her progressively sillier as the seasons have gone on, which I kinda resent.... were then sort of regressed to being the silliest characteristics of themselves. Caricatures.
I think this is in the ballpark of what rubs me the wrong way with this show. I've tried to articulate it before, and it's a very subjective thing, I think, because the stuff that annoys me seems to be the stuff other people adore. And it's probably also got to do with frames of reference, because a lot of the appealing things about Community are things that my other shows do in ways much more to my liking, and so it suffers in the comparison.
So, let's see - the one thing I do enjoy, or at least appreciate, is watching the way they play with a hierarchy of character agency. It's that Greek concept of divinity that I remember from when we studied the Illiad, with the actions of the gods shaping the conflict on one hand, dictating the fates of the mortals, with the choice of the demi-divine Achilles standing in the balance. The idea of agency being a divine characteristic also played out in BSG, with the semi-explicit correlations being drawn between various characters and Greek deities, and I always found that lens the most interesting to view it through - it makes a great deal more sense of the divine/mortal pairings such as Lee/Dee and Kara/Sam, for example. (Which I guess would put the cylons in the role of Titans or something.)
Anyway, on the lesser scale of the campus on Community, it makes watching Jeff and Abed interesting, since they are the two characters who are able to manipulate circumstances, rather than just respond to them. It's also interesting to watch how in-story manipulation compares with meta manipulation, and to watch how the creators themselves play with the story mechanics of that.
But because of that structure, and because the demarcation of character agency is so sharply drawn, I find it nearly impossible to care about the other characters' experiences or find them "real" enough to connect to. The more Jeff or Abed's agency dictate events and their fates in those events (for good or ill), the more caricature-ish and less human they become. And I've heard people talk about character development on this show, but I personally don't see it. They do stuff, and their circumstances change sometimes, and there's always some kind of moral, but I honestly don't see any real growth or change in who they are or how they handle things as a consequence.
And then because I can't invest in these characters, I don't care about their adventures. Ordinarily, I'm fascinated when stories play with in-universe meta or meta meta. But here, there was never a basis of story to ground it in; there was only a basis of setting (disparate group at community college). Everything else is consciously meta in some way. So there's no substance underneath the meta, so all it can do is feed off other pop culture stories in a way that feels a little bit creepily cannibalistic. And then the tone of it all comes off smug, showing off how very clever it all is, even down to the St Elsewhere premise of it all. Which IS clever, it just doesn't hold my interest very well, because it's not giving me anything more than pop culture regurgitated through that premise. I mean, I can enjoy the cleverness of it in bits and pieces, and watching tropes and pop culture being played with can sometimes be appealing, but it relies so heavily on the goodwill created by nostalgia for what it's drawing on, and I don't have a whole lot of that to begin with.
So, we'll see what happens with a new showrunner; it might have the same effect as WW, and I might like it more. Whew. Did all that make sense/answer your question? :D
Reply
I think the divinity stuff is fascinating. Fascinating, I tell you, not only in this case but in BSG - you've given me lightbulbs! And your agency take on Jeff and Abed is not only intellectual, but very interesting indeed. And I think it's a point very well made. There is, to be a bit more pedestrian about it, a 'realness' about Jeff and Abed (who, by the way, I really, really love. I think he's interestingly written and beautifully played, and I just... I love him.) which certainly makes them the more memorable characters, I guess? I feel like Britta's got that in her too, but for some reason they've never developed it. I don't get that, to be honest, because she has such potential. Actually, for me, all the characters have potential in them somewhere ... but you're right. In most cases that's probably not that well developed. Or not as well developed as it could be, anyway. I guess I'm happy enough being distracted by the bells and whistles that it doesn't usually worry me too much?
I do think I've seen growth and change though, although you're right, now I think about it, that's mainly been in Jeff and Abed. (Unless you count the aforementioned regression in Britta. Grr.) And maybe you're right, in that it relies on the goodwill its audience feels for other things, but I have to admit I like that about it rather than it turning me off. And I also feel plenty of goodwill for those characters on their own, and this show on its own... I couldn't tell you exactly where that nostalgia/affection line is though. Definitely blurry.
What's interesting about the references/etc element though... when I said I know some people who love it who are the very people I thought would hate it or wouldn't get it? I thought that because they're not pop culture people. They're not even TV people, a couple of them. Like, they don't watch the news even. Nothing. And yet, I know three people who fit that criteria who adore Community like they've never loved a show before.
Now I fnd that completely mystifying. I can't understand the appeal for them. But you ask 'em, and they just say "What? It's funny", so... I'm none the wiser!
I think the new showrunners will be very interesting. They're fans of the show, which I think is really important particularly for people taking over a show with this kind of sensibility. And even though I can't think of any other show more a product of its creator's mind than Community... I don't know, maybe fresh blood will be good for it. I'm certainly prepared to give them a chance, anyway.
Did all that make sense/answer your question? :D
Always and of course! And it gave me an excuse to ramble on at you moar, so, y'know... *G*
Reply
Ooh! Yay! Well, if you want to share the lightbulbs, I'm all virtual ears. (I wrote very, very little BSG fic - the most I wrote was a companion piece to Bee's Spypilots, and that was much more due to her premise than anything - but I did once write something exploring this concept through Dee's perception of Lee in Sometimes A Great Notion, if you're interested. Also off topic, I ran across this good and raegy post about Newsroom that I thought might be relevant to your interests, although I found the Huffington Post article she linked to more actually informative since I haven't seen the show myself.)
Abed (who, by the way, I really, really love. I think he's interestingly written and beautifully played, and I just... I love him.)
Ha, the funny thing is, I completely agree with this. I do love watching him, there's a very aesthetic pleasure to it somehow, which is an odd sensation when I'm not really connecting to the character. Actually, I get a similar thing watching Jeff, from a comedy delivery POV; there is a remarkable amount of skill in those two characters and actors. Well, arguably there is that much skill in all of them, but as the most complex and nuanced characters, it stands out a little more. It's possible that's what's behind your friends' "It's funny" reactions, because I would never say Community is poorly executed. The commedic quality of what's onscreen is generally much higher than most other shows on tv right now. Which is another reason I can actually watch it with my brother, rather than issuing a moratorium. I just can't seem to get past that surface level of interaction with the material.
I do think I've seen growth and change though, although you're right, now I think about it, that's mainly been in Jeff and Abed.
Which is fascinating really, as to whether they intended it this way, or whether their construction and concept of the show actually made this the only option. I mean, if the underlying conceit really is that the whole show is just in the mind of an autistic child/young man, and if Abed is his self-insert and Jeff is his idealised self-insert, then in an in-universe meta sense, no other character can grow and change until Abed-Jeff does ("do"? this is getting confusing) and becomes capable of seeing the others as characters rather than playthings. Which may in fact be the by-product of new show runners, whether intentional or not! So I'm definitely curious about how it will go, if only from an academic sort of perspective.
One interesting comment my brother had on the subject of agency and Britta was to point out that, initially, it was Britta and Jeff who possessed that level of agency and Abed was just providing commentary. Britta was clearly intended to be a foil and counterbalance for Jeff, but it soon became apparent that The Group as a whole was a much better, and far more varied, foil for him. Which left her with no real role, which gutted the characterisation designed for that, so in the end her character became about the undermining/deconstruction of that characterisation, becoming more and more exaggerated as they tried to figure out who she was and how she fit in this group of otherwise very clearly delineated types. Which is curious, you'd assume (and it was most likely intended) that Jeff was the one who was supposed to be on a journey of challenge-of-self and self-discovery, but by virtue of the creators' reassessment of Britta, she's really the one who's undergone this journey, but in the worst kind of way. Or at least only the first part of the journey, where her old concepts of self are torn down. Again, it will be interesting to see whether the new showrunners can actually find a path for her to be rebuilt.
... Yay for rambling! \o/
Reply
Reply
I've now read the links too...which. were. awesome. No, really. I've left you a comment over there, so I won't repeat myself, but also that HuffPo article! I so agree with them!! I find Mo Ryan... not always to my taste, shall we say. But I am absolutely with her here. Ragey rage McRagerson.
OK... I'll repeat myself just a little. I think your god/mortal reading of BSG is WAY more intelligent than it deserves [at least in its later stages... seasons 1 and 2 maybe deserve it a little more], and I'm quite certain RDM never had any such allegorical awesomeness in mind. But I love it. And when I rewatch (at some point) I think I will be doing so through this prism, for shits and giggles and reasons :) I don't feel I have anything particularly intelligent to offer on the subject for now though, so I shall spare you until then!
Oh! And! Incidentally - your willingness to go off topic for general chats is part of why I so love chatting with you :D AND, it's your LJ and you can go off topic if you want to. On mine too, for the record. heh.
arguably there is that much skill in all of them, but as the most complex and nuanced characters, it stands out a little more.
Yeah. I think I am clearly more easily distracted by the window dressing than you, but I cannot argue with you about this. Maybe we'll get some more development with the new show runners... I hope so... And this:
Which is fascinating really, as to whether they intended it this way, or whether their construction and concept of the show actually made this the only option.
...is a very interesting question, but one to which I have no answer! It's an excellent point though, and it ties into what you say about Britta's agency... to what extent did the show become a kind of hostage of where it found itself and what it found itself doing and simply had to run with it? To what extent did it realise that's what was happening? I don't know.
Because I think you're right, in the second season as the ensemble really developed, The Group is the foil. But it began in the first season, with Abed. He's the real foil to Jeff, for mine. A person who inhabits and responds to the world in a completely opposite way to Jeff. Or at least to SeasonOneJeff... Abed brings out the humanity in Jeff in a way that I think only Britta does otherwise. There are moments betwen Jeff and Shirley that do that too (and in fact, Shirley's best and most three-dimensional moments are usually in her interactions with Jeff. I love the Jeff/Shirley backstory stuff) and there are soooort of moments with the others. But it's Abed and Britta who have actually provoked Jeff to change, to become more of a person. And it's probably not surprising that those three are my favourite characters as a result. They have the most interesting and human interactions. Some would argue Annie has that with Jeff too, but I don't buy that, actually. His interaction with her is still pretty typically in line with his interactions with women pre-college, I think. That is to say, he sees her in tropes not in traits: she's either Young And Innocent School Girl, or she's Sexualised Vamp. And he doesn't really know what to do with that, in my opinion. Which is why, at least for me, their interactions are so kind of awkward and preachy and forced. And eww.
But yes, as Abed became the (fabulous and appropriate) foil for Jeff... Britta started to fade into caricature. But I still love her so much for what she almost-was-and-sometimes-is, and for what she COULD be - and what I am somewhat forlornly still convinced is lurking somewhere in her character backstory, and beneath the surface - that I can't give up on her. I just want them to do her justice. Please, please, please new showrunners... Please.
... Yay for rambling! \o/
**high fives** And thankyou even MORE for rambling so satisfingly about something you don't even really like that much!! :D
Reply
No worries! I completely understand. I always intend to respond to comments quicker too, it just so rarely happens. :/
I'll repeat myself just a little.
On this subject - I fell victim to my own links! I went back and browsed through the meta links I linked to in that post, and got completely distracted with K/L thoughts once more. BLOODY HELL. PILOTS. WTF. But I'll leave that for the other comments too. :)
Incidentally - your willingness to go off topic for general chats is part of why I so love chatting with you
Right?! Ditto! X)
in fact, Shirley's best and most three-dimensional moments are usually in her interactions with Jeff.
Most recently, definitely. I vaguely recall that initially it was with Britta, though, right? Which again is in line with the evolution of the show.
And re: your comments about Annie, I think I agree. But I find her and Chevy Chase the most grating, painful-to-watch characters in the group to watch. (Don't even get me STARTED on Chang. ARGH.) For her part, it's hard to see Jeff interact with her outside the tropes she embodies because I don't see very much in the character herself apart from those tropes. And when did she take on a slight shading of nuance? When she moved in with Abed (and Troy). Actually, doing the same was what moved Troy away from the last of his inital defining tropes, but in his case reduced his character entirely to just being Abed's playmate. (Mind you, I have only seen up to the introduction of dark!Abed, so I don't know how that plays out yet. Don't worry about spoiling me, though, I'm not particularly invested....)
I just want them to do her justice. Please, please, please new showrunners... Please.
I shall hope for you! I wasn't nearly as struck by her as you were (obviously), but even I have been having a hard time with how they've been using her in the narrative. It would be nice to see that redeemed somehow. It's funny, between Harmon, Sorkin, Moore and Whedon, I am beginning to find a real intolerance building against showrunners who co-opt their own shows to work out their issues/megahorn their agenda. Or at least those that do it through creating fantasies that endorse their issues/agendas rather than challenge and develop them. I have this image of them sitting alone under their blanket fort (thank you Abed and Troy), playing with their action figures, going LA LA LA can't hear you, YAY MEEEEE!... Either that, or they and I are in profound disagreement as to the primary purpose of a show/story and their responsibilities as storytellers. And possibly human beings. It's always easier to say the whole world has to change, than to say that you do.
... *cough*
**high fives** And thankyou even MORE for rambling so satisfingly about something you don't even really like that much!!
**high five back** You're welcome! Besides, clearly the issues are very interesting - it's not exactly a strain, especially when you have such lovely company to ramble discuss it intelligently with! :)
(Oh, which reminds me - I don't know if you have time for watching things, but if you haven't already, I found the movie The Brothers Bloom to be a very interesting exploration of the questions of agency, of free will and predestination, and quite gleefully plays with themes and tropes under the surface of the narrative. Plus, probably my favourite Mark Ruffalo performance of all time, I actually liked Adrien Brody, and Rachel Weisz being very cute and quirky. Recommended!)
Reply
Generally speaking? In a way, I guess. But, the first episode in which we really got to know anything about Shirley was she and Jeff bonding over both being bitchy gossips :) And I still think the best moments we get from her pit her against him. Because against Jeff she HAS to abandon her affected sweetness-and-light-passive-aggression and be the tough-nut she actually is. And THAT is a much more interesting character imho.
Don't even get me STARTED on Chang.
Yeah... I find it strange that people just seem to love him more and more. I really liked Chang in the first season, but once he was no longer a teacher? No. And I'll tell you why:
Firstly, because it's just dumb to repeat the 'i have fake qualifications and need to go back to Community College in order to get an actual degree' thing. I don't really know why they would mirror Jeff with Chang in this sense... just... dumb. And detrimental to the story, because...
Secondly, the thing that makes Chang an interesting character is him being a psychopath in a position of power. Once you take that away from him and make him a disgraced-former-teacher-and-community-college-student you make him profoundly less interesting. Also, as he relates to our key protagonist Jeff, in the real world Teacher!Chang is still much lower down the ladder than Lawyer!Jeff was. But that is reversed when Jeff has to go become Student!Jeff. But Student!Jeff trumps Student!Chang every day of the week. And their relationship isn't interesting without that strange imbalance.
All of which is a very long way of saying: 'I agree. Don't talk to me about Chang.' *G*
lovely company to ramble discuss it intelligently with
grins :D Back atcha.
And OMG I HAVE SEEN IT! IT IS GREAT... must add to my rewatch list....
Reply
Oh, yeah, I remember. I'm a bit vague on the progression - I was remembering there was early stuff where she and Britta had to ... I don't know, learn to tolerate each other, I guess? I mean, not just on the religion front, but also personality-wise. But I do remember the episode, and how it was the first time we saw her really show something unexpected.
You make good points about Chang! I haven't thought more in-depth than I find him really, REALLY annoying. But yeah, I completely agree about the power dynamics and character roles. Huh. Yet another reason to tune in and see what the new showrunners will do!
Brothers Bloom! It's making me want to rewatch it now too....
Reply
Yeah, she and Britta had a really nice dynamic too - still do in a lot of ways actually. I think Jeff and Britta both bring out something interesting in Shirley because they provoke her, I think. She's provoked into reacting against them, which makes her more interesting than she is alone or with less in your face characters.
And I'm glad you like the Change point! I was having dinner with a fellow-Community peep the other night and tried it out on them too... they're a later-series-Chang fan. But I think I managed to win some ground. One person at a time, monkeytwin... :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment