In admiration/disappointment...

[lozenger8]

This post is all about my complicated, one-sided love/hate affair with Matthew Graham (and to a lesser extent, Ashley Pharoah), so if you're not in the mood for me being just a lot crazycakes, maybe don't click on the cut.

Comments

[theficklepickle]

Well received doesn't always equal 'good'.

Powerfully true, and so is the reverse. You only have to look at the relative size of the audiences for Shakespeare and soap operas to know that. In fact, to many people, what is perceived as being 'good' is also perceived as being 'difficult' (or elitist); a lot of people don't want entertainment that they have to think about, because thinking is just too difficult. The trouble is that, in mass entertainment, decisions are based on the requirements of those who prefer not to exercise their brains, simply because there are so many of them - and there we have the classic dilemma of the writer; good stuff that only a few people will 'get', or populist stuff that will put bread on the table? This, of course, is why fan fiction is so often better than its pro equivalent; when the economic imperative is absent, there are far more possibilities available!

[lozenger8]

I can't help but be a little worried about a collection of cultures who don't want to question anything or put any kind of processing power into thinking about the fiction they interact with.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I have the shows I watch that I don't really want to think too carefully about. A couple of them are things that I'm fairly sure I'm going to give up watching because they're so banal, though.

It's strange, isn't it, because there are examples of popular things being 'good'. Shakespeare is an example there. There are also plenty of popular things that have many good elements. It's hard to strike the balance. (On a personal note, my most popular Life on Mars fic in terms of people recommending it is probably my best in concept and execution, but the most popular in terms of comment response is something like 400 words of a reaction to a photo. I have been both popular and unpopular, populist and esoteric, often from one fic to the next.)

[lozenger8]

I think the thing that gets me about Matt's intersection with fandom in particular (because, again, he's the one who's had the most) is that he continually seems to expect unconditional love and affection from the diehard fans, whilst simultaneously doing things like calling them psychotic and unstable. He wants fannish love, he attempts to appeal to it, but in the next second he'll cut fans down to size. Fans aren't allowed to criticise, only adore. And dude --- being a fan means you're invested --- you care --- and if you're not well-served, of course you're going to complain. Let's not even go into how Matthew either listens to/reads the weirdest conversations about his work, or pays no attention to absolutely valid critique. He has a bee in his bonnet about critics and therefore discounts everything they say. That's like hating excess signage and choosing to ignore DANGER, KEEP OUT, COLLAPSED MINE. "What's that, Timmy? Matthew's stuck down the mineshaft? Didn't he take note of the fellow writer who said he relied too much upon

[mountland]

As far as tollerating him being a dick goes I used to be able to cope with it. (I mean, at least he isn't Moffat, although they have many similar traits especially in regards to treating fans badly) But he crossed a line for me with the comments about PG, because thats not selling himself out, or his characters or possibly the fans, thats hurting a real person who brought his characters to life and did nothing wrong. That was the end of any admiration I could have for him as a person. As a writer I agree with you that he is great but I don't think he'll ever be good, he makes the same mistakes again and again and by doing so throws away somany opportunities that it makes him a wasted talent

[lozenger8]

Ah, see, the thing with Phil still confuses the ever-living fuck out of me. I can't shake the feeling that something more was at play there. That could just be random speculation, but, I suppose I like to believe the best in people. I absolutely think Matthew made a mistake, but I don't, for instance, know how hurt Phil was. He seemed to take it all in stride. Should Matt have got up in arms about that one line? Well, he's entitled to. I think I might be slightly annoyed if someone tried to claim my wit as their own (had it been a better line.) Should he have gone on a twitter rampage? Absolutely not. He hasn't got another public twitter, though, so maybe he needed to remove himself from temptation. And, really, he was mildly insulting, but he wasn't horrible to Phil, He was mostly just... Matthew. (Okay, calling it a 'deluded ego trip' was pretty harsh. But once again, Matthew

[lozenger8]

I don't think it's purely British. It certainly happens in Australia. It truly is depressing.

[draycevixen]

Honest Loz, that's not my MG. Your MG and I are just good friends. *g*

[lozenger8]

:p EVIL, I TELL YOU.

[chamekke]

Matthew describes his characters as archetypes whilst simultaneously writing these multi-layered, complex individuals, who are in some ways nothing like other characters we're usually allowed to see on the tellybox. Gene Hunt is more than a boor and a bully, Richard Pembroke more than a demonic villain.

I totally agree, which is why I'm so WTF? over Matthew handing over the LOMverse to brother Tom. Who writes Gene Hunt as the boorest boor that ever boored!

And it was Matthew, don't forget, who complained about certain fannish portrayals of Gene because he'd named the character after a favourite uncle and felt protective of him. This is why his lack of proprietary feeling in this case confuses me so much. The lack of *cough* quality assurance.

P.S. Let's just hope Tom never gets his hands on Eternal Law...

matthew graham

[call_me_lovey]

Hiya,

I wondered what you'd have to say about the novels! I like MG because his stuff seems like something I might write, because he seems to luv his music, because I think his eps of DW are the best, & most of all I like him because he helped make Gene Hunt up.

It's like a band you like; good bands never truly disappoint, you never tire of them, etc.

There are plenty of people about who don't seem to be interested in anything. I don't know how they can live like that, but they somehow do. I've never been that type of person & I never will. If I was/am unstable I think friends/family would notice.

I still think they should've done the novels when one/both of the programmes were actually on. I'd luv to read them but I don't have a Kindle.

Re: matthew graham

[lozenger8]

Hi!

I wasn't sure if this comment was for me, Loz, or for Chamekke, but I will say that I love, love, love MG, I just wish he was more protective of his work from a professional point of view.

I am interested in all kinds, and I agree that I think it's important.

Re: matthew graham

[call_me_lovey]

Hiya,

If these novels turn out to be good, great. If they turn out not to be, I’ll pass them on. They're just books - there's much more important things to worry about. I'll still luv Gene either way. I've read books that were so bad I thought they were good.

I choose to ignore what MG says. I'll most likely never meet him, he knows nothing about me/my life. People have said much worse to me anyway!

Close family/friends know I basically revere Gene, but I don't “see”/talk to him. I NEVER mention him unless someone else brings the subject up, say they ask who that is on my calendar/wall, but most people don't really care.