Long-running tales
1) I just picked up a number of eBooks this week and went through two of them, KC at Bat and Lonesome Town by Tom Mendocino, in the past two days. I found them a mixed bag.
I like sports m/m romances, in part because I like learning more about these worlds through the lens of specific characters. However, the fact that KC is an aspiring baseball pro is not really central to the story. It's important in KC's life, but it could have been any other sport or, for that matter, particular skill he was recognized for. The story isn't set in that world, it's just a sideline. Also Charlie, while apparently very interested in music, doesn't ultimately follow a musical career.
If the two books (which are part of a series) are considered one story then this does have a hopeful if not clearly HEA ending, and it does focus primarily on one relationship. So it does fall into a romance category. But I found them quite unromantic for several reasons. One was because of the get-togethers and breakups (and various other hookups etc.), as well as the overall uncertainty and unclear definitions of the relationship. Another was that the sex was barely discussed despite being key to the attraction between them, and in at least one case there was an incident of anal with no lube or prep at all as if this was a perfectly common thing to happen.
And then there's the problem with the protagonist, Charlie. The longer the story went on, the more I disliked him. He's insecure, dishonest, thoughtless, and indifferent to most people. I started to wonder what KC could possibly see in him, especially after the first part of their relationship where his admiration and uncertainty could have been seen as flattering. The fact that Charlie then improbably has a couple of crying jags scattered in the story struck me as both out of character and left me more annoyed than anything else, given that he didn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings.
One point to mention is that these two books are from Charlie's POV whereas a middle book in the trilogy is from KC's, although apparently it doesn't have much more about baseball since it covers a period in his life referred to in the third book. My only interest in it would be to learn more about KC's backstory, primarily his younger years, but I would assume it provides KC's own reasoning as to his attraction to Charlie.
I didn't appreciate the casual racism in the book, and a jab at the idea of cultural appropriation. It occurred as asides in a few places, but that always leaves me less forgiving a reader.
However, the books were a quick read -- I zipped through both of them, and I definitely didn't anticipate where anything was going, which is a big plus. As an overall arc of two people's youth to middle age, I thought it followed a believable path. Also, though I've never considered myself a sentimental sort, I could have used more of it here. But the absence of a lot of emotionally dramatic scenes certainly made it easier to keep rolling through the plot. I also think that the longer the story goes on, the more sympathetic a character KC becomes.
I guess ultimately, if I used the Netflix model, I'd rate it three stars. I wasn't sorry I spent time reading these, but I have no interest in re-reading them and can't offer an enthusiastic recommendation.
2) Just wanted to send out a thanks to
dolewhip who created several additional Moana icons for me to nab. (It's a nifty post of various Disney films, so check it out!)
More widely, there was another comment to the post about how nice it was to see icons being made and I completely agree. Even though I often let posts go by without comment because I don't know the fandoms, it's great to see the sample announcements when I scroll. My problem right now is that I am almost out of icon space and would love to grab many more from random shows and movies.
3) I just watched all 10 episodes of Dear White People last week. I really enjoyed the show, and liked the way the overall season's stories were presented.
Although I wondered why there were some omissions in who got developed (specifically Joelle who, unlike Reggie, appeared in all the episodes), I liked the mix of precipitating incident, individual backstories, different perspectives on the same incidents, and then crescendo finale.
The show could not be more topical (especially given its brief run) and I was glad to hear that it'll be returning, as it's got a great set of characters and I'd like to know what happens with them. And considering the seriousness of the issues underlying the episodes, I found its humor made it a lot easier to not only watch but binge watch.
Speaking of TV, just wanted to leave another plug for
tv_talk whose weekly social posts are turning into a nice mixer for TV watchers.
4) In looking for something to occupy me while cooking or eating, I started watching Twin Peaks again. (I don't know if I'll watch the newest season as it's sounding like some of the worst stuff from the original series, but responses do seem to be mixed).
My high school friend and I were utterly hooked on this when it debuted and it was the first show where we'd do the equivalent of viewing parties. It was just unlike anything we'd seen (or a lot of people had seen) on TV, which was, at the time, a land of largely unexciting sameness with production values from a decade earlier.
I'd say Twin Peaks still has a novelty to it today. Part of it is just the over-the-top weirdness of small things and bigger ones (such as the now classic red room dream). The other is the way it likes to jab at particular tropes, such as how people may have eating scenes on film but never seem to actually eat (or care much about the food), or be unable to talk because they're eating! I also thought that Coop's OTT love of coffee and his thumbs up was part of the previous decade's obsession with character catchphrases.
The first season does stand out as the better of the two -- more coherent, and it could have potentially wrapped up the entire story in that 8 episode arc. The show should have been a miniseries (perhaps with a sequel) since there were no short-run shows back then. Instead they had miniseries that would have 8-10 hour stories, usually run on consecutive nights. Given all its buzz it was better for Peaks that it ran as a weekly show. But clearly there wasn't enough story originally planned for the series. It was the original LOST.
I found the start of S2 a jarring change. In fact, given the Netflix viewing, I hadn't even realized I was starting a new season. But the feeling was definitely there. For one thing, it was like the network had given a memo that there wasn't enough sexual titillation in the show and that the teenage girls had to be sexier. If you consider their original wardrobe, it was more age appropriate, and in fact quite conservative. Instead at the start of S2 you've got Audrey in lingerie and Donna doing some kind of weird femme fatale act in more form fitting (and stylish) clothes.
The other change was the mix of leading clues and obvious exposition from the giant. Apparently his mission was to wrap up some of the dangling plotlines from S1 while laying out new mysterious phrases for S2.
That said, probably the funniest line I'd heard yet was at the start of S2 E1. It wasn't the drawn out appearance of the waiter, though that was mildly funny (and I couldn't help thinking he was a stand-in for fans of the show, both in his cluelessness about what was helpful as well as his repeated flashing of the thumbs up to Cooper). No, it was Dale's question about whether the bill included a gratuity. If there was ever anyone less deserving of one...
However watching the show for a season reminded me of one thing that I did find appealing about the it. Despite the erratic and devious behavior of many of the characters, there was also a kindness shown as well. For example, I quite liked Lucy's earnest approach to her work, and the fact that despite not being the most efficient of receptionist/dispatchers, her efforts were appreciated.
5) AO3 now has over 25,000 fandoms represented, and their announcement post has a lot of good advice for tagging your work. It also suggests people link to their favorite small fandoms that could use some more attention.
My recent rewatch of the early episodes of Twin Peaks reminded me of a film I saw at that same time, The Hidden Has anyone else watched this?
I always thought that this appearance was the root of the creation of Dale Cooper, though maybe it's just me that can draw a line between those two roles. I thought that Michael Nouri was not unlike Michael Ontkean physically, and the basis of the relationship where the cop has to trust the weird FBI agent in what turns out to be a supernatural case was another connecting point. After all, Lynch had already used MacLachlan in Dune, so I don't think it's unlikely he followed his career before re-casting him. (He also cast Madchen Amick who had co-starred with MacLachlan the same year, and given how few roles she'd had at that point, I have to think that was not a coincidence).
Another thing that stood out to me is that in The Hidden, MacLachlan played a real good guy, even though as a fish out of water he isn't as directly charismatic as Dale Cooper is. What I always liked about Cooper was his fundamental decency. That scene where he gets Audrey out of his bed, for example, is built on personal kindness -- as is his appreciation for the people he comes to know and work with in Twin Peaks (compared to, say, Albert). Even though Twin Peaks is this seething pit of secrets and betrayals, he has a great forgiveness of human foibles.
Additionally, Sheriff Truman has no problem in following Cooper's lead and fails to show (what would be understandable) doubt in his methods, demonstrating a lack of ego in the pursuit of his job. This made him a lovely counterpart to Cooper and the various other characters he works with. On the downside, Truman could come off as a bit of blank non-reactive slate. Nouri's character is more believable, though the fact that he isn't even more confrontational suggests that the same sort of partnership was in the script, because Nouri himself was difficult to work with.
Comments at Dreamwidth
.
I like sports m/m romances, in part because I like learning more about these worlds through the lens of specific characters. However, the fact that KC is an aspiring baseball pro is not really central to the story. It's important in KC's life, but it could have been any other sport or, for that matter, particular skill he was recognized for. The story isn't set in that world, it's just a sideline. Also Charlie, while apparently very interested in music, doesn't ultimately follow a musical career.
If the two books (which are part of a series) are considered one story then this does have a hopeful if not clearly HEA ending, and it does focus primarily on one relationship. So it does fall into a romance category. But I found them quite unromantic for several reasons. One was because of the get-togethers and breakups (and various other hookups etc.), as well as the overall uncertainty and unclear definitions of the relationship. Another was that the sex was barely discussed despite being key to the attraction between them, and in at least one case there was an incident of anal with no lube or prep at all as if this was a perfectly common thing to happen.
And then there's the problem with the protagonist, Charlie. The longer the story went on, the more I disliked him. He's insecure, dishonest, thoughtless, and indifferent to most people. I started to wonder what KC could possibly see in him, especially after the first part of their relationship where his admiration and uncertainty could have been seen as flattering. The fact that Charlie then improbably has a couple of crying jags scattered in the story struck me as both out of character and left me more annoyed than anything else, given that he didn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings.
One point to mention is that these two books are from Charlie's POV whereas a middle book in the trilogy is from KC's, although apparently it doesn't have much more about baseball since it covers a period in his life referred to in the third book. My only interest in it would be to learn more about KC's backstory, primarily his younger years, but I would assume it provides KC's own reasoning as to his attraction to Charlie.
I didn't appreciate the casual racism in the book, and a jab at the idea of cultural appropriation. It occurred as asides in a few places, but that always leaves me less forgiving a reader.
However, the books were a quick read -- I zipped through both of them, and I definitely didn't anticipate where anything was going, which is a big plus. As an overall arc of two people's youth to middle age, I thought it followed a believable path. Also, though I've never considered myself a sentimental sort, I could have used more of it here. But the absence of a lot of emotionally dramatic scenes certainly made it easier to keep rolling through the plot. I also think that the longer the story goes on, the more sympathetic a character KC becomes.
I guess ultimately, if I used the Netflix model, I'd rate it three stars. I wasn't sorry I spent time reading these, but I have no interest in re-reading them and can't offer an enthusiastic recommendation.
2) Just wanted to send out a thanks to
dolewhip who created several additional Moana icons for me to nab. (It's a nifty post of various Disney films, so check it out!)
More widely, there was another comment to the post about how nice it was to see icons being made and I completely agree. Even though I often let posts go by without comment because I don't know the fandoms, it's great to see the sample announcements when I scroll. My problem right now is that I am almost out of icon space and would love to grab many more from random shows and movies.
3) I just watched all 10 episodes of Dear White People last week. I really enjoyed the show, and liked the way the overall season's stories were presented.
Although I wondered why there were some omissions in who got developed (specifically Joelle who, unlike Reggie, appeared in all the episodes), I liked the mix of precipitating incident, individual backstories, different perspectives on the same incidents, and then crescendo finale.
The show could not be more topical (especially given its brief run) and I was glad to hear that it'll be returning, as it's got a great set of characters and I'd like to know what happens with them. And considering the seriousness of the issues underlying the episodes, I found its humor made it a lot easier to not only watch but binge watch.
Speaking of TV, just wanted to leave another plug for
tv_talk whose weekly social posts are turning into a nice mixer for TV watchers.
4) In looking for something to occupy me while cooking or eating, I started watching Twin Peaks again. (I don't know if I'll watch the newest season as it's sounding like some of the worst stuff from the original series, but responses do seem to be mixed).
My high school friend and I were utterly hooked on this when it debuted and it was the first show where we'd do the equivalent of viewing parties. It was just unlike anything we'd seen (or a lot of people had seen) on TV, which was, at the time, a land of largely unexciting sameness with production values from a decade earlier.
I'd say Twin Peaks still has a novelty to it today. Part of it is just the over-the-top weirdness of small things and bigger ones (such as the now classic red room dream). The other is the way it likes to jab at particular tropes, such as how people may have eating scenes on film but never seem to actually eat (or care much about the food), or be unable to talk because they're eating! I also thought that Coop's OTT love of coffee and his thumbs up was part of the previous decade's obsession with character catchphrases.
The first season does stand out as the better of the two -- more coherent, and it could have potentially wrapped up the entire story in that 8 episode arc. The show should have been a miniseries (perhaps with a sequel) since there were no short-run shows back then. Instead they had miniseries that would have 8-10 hour stories, usually run on consecutive nights. Given all its buzz it was better for Peaks that it ran as a weekly show. But clearly there wasn't enough story originally planned for the series. It was the original LOST.
I found the start of S2 a jarring change. In fact, given the Netflix viewing, I hadn't even realized I was starting a new season. But the feeling was definitely there. For one thing, it was like the network had given a memo that there wasn't enough sexual titillation in the show and that the teenage girls had to be sexier. If you consider their original wardrobe, it was more age appropriate, and in fact quite conservative. Instead at the start of S2 you've got Audrey in lingerie and Donna doing some kind of weird femme fatale act in more form fitting (and stylish) clothes.
The other change was the mix of leading clues and obvious exposition from the giant. Apparently his mission was to wrap up some of the dangling plotlines from S1 while laying out new mysterious phrases for S2.
That said, probably the funniest line I'd heard yet was at the start of S2 E1. It wasn't the drawn out appearance of the waiter, though that was mildly funny (and I couldn't help thinking he was a stand-in for fans of the show, both in his cluelessness about what was helpful as well as his repeated flashing of the thumbs up to Cooper). No, it was Dale's question about whether the bill included a gratuity. If there was ever anyone less deserving of one...
However watching the show for a season reminded me of one thing that I did find appealing about the it. Despite the erratic and devious behavior of many of the characters, there was also a kindness shown as well. For example, I quite liked Lucy's earnest approach to her work, and the fact that despite not being the most efficient of receptionist/dispatchers, her efforts were appreciated.
5) AO3 now has over 25,000 fandoms represented, and their announcement post has a lot of good advice for tagging your work. It also suggests people link to their favorite small fandoms that could use some more attention.
My recent rewatch of the early episodes of Twin Peaks reminded me of a film I saw at that same time, The Hidden Has anyone else watched this?
I always thought that this appearance was the root of the creation of Dale Cooper, though maybe it's just me that can draw a line between those two roles. I thought that Michael Nouri was not unlike Michael Ontkean physically, and the basis of the relationship where the cop has to trust the weird FBI agent in what turns out to be a supernatural case was another connecting point. After all, Lynch had already used MacLachlan in Dune, so I don't think it's unlikely he followed his career before re-casting him. (He also cast Madchen Amick who had co-starred with MacLachlan the same year, and given how few roles she'd had at that point, I have to think that was not a coincidence).
Another thing that stood out to me is that in The Hidden, MacLachlan played a real good guy, even though as a fish out of water he isn't as directly charismatic as Dale Cooper is. What I always liked about Cooper was his fundamental decency. That scene where he gets Audrey out of his bed, for example, is built on personal kindness -- as is his appreciation for the people he comes to know and work with in Twin Peaks (compared to, say, Albert). Even though Twin Peaks is this seething pit of secrets and betrayals, he has a great forgiveness of human foibles.
Additionally, Sheriff Truman has no problem in following Cooper's lead and fails to show (what would be understandable) doubt in his methods, demonstrating a lack of ego in the pursuit of his job. This made him a lovely counterpart to Cooper and the various other characters he works with. On the downside, Truman could come off as a bit of blank non-reactive slate. Nouri's character is more believable, though the fact that he isn't even more confrontational suggests that the same sort of partnership was in the script, because Nouri himself was difficult to work with.
Comments at Dreamwidth
.