Why I’m not reading Jezebel or wowOwow anymore

February 3rd, 2009 by Brianna

A while ago, after reading this post, I decided there wasn’t any point in reading Jezebel any more. And just now, I also deleted wowOwow from my rss reader.

I just couldn’t stand them anymore.

There didn’t seem to be any obvious reason why. The writing is good on both sites and they post about subjects I’m interested in. I read many blogs of far, far worse technical quality.

Jezebel, of course, annoys with their occasional feminist-who-aren’t-us are stupid attitude. But the above-mentioned post was merely the last straw. The real problem? They post too much crap! They post random celebrity photos, aimless, unfocused entertainment commentary, and random semi-feminist ideas, seemingly without any goal. Sure, once in a while there’s a flash of genius, but I don’t have time to wade through the crap to find it. Besides, Feministing links to almost all of their interesting stuff.

wowOwow, on the other hand, is… far too impersonal. The writers are almost (or all they all?) professional journalist/writers, and they seemingly have no idea how to write a blog. Reading wowOwow mostly just reminded me why I can’t stand to read a traditional newspaper or watch TV anymore. They occasionally post something – like the interview with Rachel Maddow – that can’t be found elsewhere, but once again, it’s just not worth the effort.

In retrospect, the trouble with both of these blogs was simply that they posted too *much*. Jezebel posts around, what, 50, 60 posts a day? And wowOwow posts around 30 – I just get the feeling that neither of them can decide what is really important or interesting, so they just throw it out there and let the reader wade through it, just like a news magazine, or the evening TV news does. Put something in there for every kind of reader/viewer, and hope you get enough right to keep people watching. But on the Internet, we can all the options on earth. We don’t have to read anything that is uninteresting.

In other words, traditional publishing techniques simply don’t work on the web! Why do they even try?

(Side note – I wonder if that’s why small volume magazines, i.e. Bitch, some of those women-in-music ‘zines, etc. are having so much trouble? Perhaps they’re still thinking in paper print terms, even when they try to move partly to the web.)

Gunfights and Stickfights

November 18th, 2008 by Brianna

I’ve been watching a lot of old Charmed episodes lately. It’s not Buffy, it’s not Xena, it’s not even the L Word – but I like it. It has (usually) strong female characters, decent writing, and fair production values. But something about Charmed always bothered me, and it’s not that they had a penchant for making the occasional ‘Very Special Episode’ – (or that they killed Prue, though I wish they hadn’t!)

I think I’m bothered by the mechanics behind the magic.

Let me explain: I’m not usually given to fanboy tendencies (You know the type. “Spiderman is way cooler than the Incredible hulk, and here’s why!”, or “The Enterprise could totally beat the Battlestar Galactica,” or “Here are all of the different types of Pokeman, organized by color, personality and intelligence.”) I do care about realism, though. Not of the ‘that couldn’t really happen’ type, but of the ’suspension of disbelief’ type. So despite all of Xena’s crazy physics, random messing with the show’s mythology, and out-of-character comedy moments, it still suspends disbelief, because at the end of the day, Xena and Gabrielle are still soulmates – and that makes sense.

The plots of Charmed revolve around various magical events. Those events usually involve some random new demon with some random new ‘power’ who is stopped by the sisters’ reciting a silly rhyme! The extant of the sister’s power are never really explained. The way by which the spells work are confusing, and seemingly made up for each given plot. What saves the show is that whatever demonic threat they face,it makes sense to them, and helps them grow as people/overcome some personal problem/generally serve some emotional point. So, you just have to go along with the cheesy magic, and enjoy the characters! Or so I thought…

I noticed something, oddly enough, while watching Bound the other day. Several people get shot in Bound – but curiously, the victor in the fight is not the strongest, the smartest, or even the best prepared. When Caesar kills the mafia bosses, he wins, simply because he got his gun out first. It was three against one (I think), and he was rather whimpy – but he shot the others without much difficulty because he made the first move. This, of course, is a feature of most movies that contain violence, but which are not action movies., In an action piece, it takes forever to kill someone – giving lots of time for explosions, taunting, and cool poses. Buffy, for example, alternates punches with quips, faces reoccurring trouble without any sense of closure, and generally seems to be in one continual fight. Xena comes back from the dead whenever she pleases. Even your random cop show has extended gun fights for coolness’ sake. But that’s not how real violence usually works. It only takes one moderate wound to incapacitate a person for days. Most serious fights – gun fights in particular – are over before they begin. And the person who was goes first usually wins.

It’s gunfights vs. stickfights. In an action piece, the character’s might as well be fighting with sticks, for all the damage they do – but we like it, because it looks cool and doesn’t remind us of real violence.

Real violence isn’t pretty, it’s sudden and horrible.

And that was my problem with Charmed. I expected another Buffy-type show. It’s magical, it’s semi action oriented, and the character’s generally kill (demons, of course!) without compunction.

But Charmed is really more realistic than I thought. Sure, the rhymes are still cheesy, but the suddenness, the thin line between being killing and being killed, the fear of the moment that the sisters exhibit, is perhaps more realistic that the vast majority of shows. The real fight of the show, is to be ready for the actual fight.

Either that, or they cut fights short because their effects budget really sucked…

More stereotypical characters, please!

October 18th, 2008 by Brianna

How many times have you heard or read these phrase: “<Random strong female character> is a good character because she’s strong without giving up her femininity.” or maybe, “It’s good that <random female character> isn’t just a male character in a woman’s body, because that is boring and stereotypical.”

I can’t seem to come up with any links to this kind of thing right now, but I keep hearing this kind of talk, over and over again – especially when I’m discussing something like Buffy with male friends. I just have one question: When has this ever been done? When have we seen a ‘male character in a female body’, and where can I find it?

Alien? Terminator? Ripley/Sarah Conner are cast in a mother role.

Alice or Jill in the Resident Evil series? Maybe. Some of Elizabeth Moon’s characters? I suppose.

I’m sure that there are more examples, but I think that we can agree – such characters are very, very rare.

Now, I love the complex, wonderful characters that are created when strong female characters are ‘done right’ i.e., not stereotypes. I wouldn’t have Buffy, or Ripley, or Xena, or Elizabeth Bennett, or whomever written any other way. Writers should strive to create complex, well-rounded characters of all genders. Sometimes, however, it just doesn’t happen. And sometimes, I’m just not up to digesting a complex, realistic character – I just want something simple. And stereotypes, ideals, are important to out cultural mythmaking…

But, where are these stereotypes? It seems like even the toughest female action-oriented characters resort to seduction on a regular basis. (c.f. Max from Dark Angel, Xena) And those that don’t are still supposed to be sympathetic to family members, spouses/boyfriends, starving orphans, etc, to a degree unheard of by their male counterparts. We wouldn’t want them seeming any less female, now would we? And if they are less female, they’re invarabily evil.

So here’s what I want:

I want a female western hero, Lone Ranger style. The kind that comes into town on a big white horse, defeats the bad guys, and rides of into the sunset. No weird former relationships, no serious love intrest, no noticeable weaknesses.

I want a female James Bond clone. Not an Alias-type female spy, but the whole masculine-fantasy Bond. Suave, perfect gentleperson, yet an amazing detective and fighter, who has an astonishing sense of luck, inept sidekicks, and who gets all the girls without trying, but who remains cooly detached throughout. For even more bonus points, make her straight and give her feminine, ‘woman in a man’s body’, male love interests.

(Side note: why is it that male characters often have love interests that are weak and girly, but female characters always dispise and reject weak male love interests, only accepting those that are close to their quality?)

I want a female buddy comedy. Baby Mama doesn’t count. It couldn’t have been made with male characters.

I want a romance movie with the roles reversed. Completely. Enough said.

I could go on and on.

We probably won’t ever get any of these things. There’s been such a rejection of cliched characters of any gender, that nobody’s going to try anything this different, but I can wish! Still…

The male ideal stereotype, the ‘White Knight’ if you will, is still pervasive in the culture. Even if modern fictional characters tend to be less idealistic, less heroic, the ideal is still there, and the modern characters still approximate it, even if they remain human. By refusing to create female characters who embody the masculine stereotype, even the strongest women will invarabily be compared, not to that stereotype, but to the existing feminine stereotype. This tendancy leads to a rejection of certain roles for women and men in real life. By denying this stereotype, we essentially deny half of human expression for half the human race.

And let’s not even start on feminine male characters…

(Crossposted from Fourth Wave)

What’s up with speeches these days?

October 8th, 2008 by Brianna

I just finished taking the stupidest test I have ever taken. It was for a public speaking class – and rather than have any thing to do with public speaking, the test was over a bunch of arbitrary concepts like “What are the differences between beliefs, values, standpoints, and attitudes.” and “What are the different ‘levels’ of communication” I know, I know, nobody cares, including me.

But being angry about this stupid (required) class and its stupid picky rules caused me to think about real public speaking – especially politicians.

So: Random Opinions on Public Communication

Read full post »

Art Snobs

August 20th, 2008 by Brianna

Budding obsessed Xena fan that I am, I was looking through the Whoosh! archives when I came across an interview with Josh Becker. He seemed like a pretty smart (if weird) guy, and a excellent director – who doesn’t like obsessed Xena fans – but I was curious about the statement that he was a “lightning rod for praise and condemnation due to his openness and outspokenness.”

I checked out his website, and my first impressions seemed rather correct. He seemed to be the stereotype of the crazy director – he is rather serious about life, and even more serious about his movies (he is constantly telling people to “grow up”). He is incredibly opinionated about everything, and is smart enough that his ideas seem right a good portion of the time. He obviously knows a lot about making movies – his site is full of advice on film structure, DIY filmmaking, etc.

Now, I usually like opinionated smart people, even if I don’t agree with them. But the more time I spent on Josh Becker’s site, the angrier I became. For a while I couldn’t figure out why. Sure, he’s a condescending jerk to people who ask him dumb questions, but lots of people are like that – it wouldn’t make me hate him.

Suddenly, though, I realized what my problem with Josh Becker is. He is a complete Art Snob.

Read full post »

Semi-Critical Reviews: Introduction

August 2nd, 2008 by Brianna

I hate critics.

I can’t count the number of times that I’ve read a ‘critical review’ of some book, movie, play, album, etc., and being somehow left with the impression that the author of the review didn’t actually like anything. I frequently wonder why they even bother writing them – it would seem like you would only write reviews if you actually liked the things you were writing reviews about.

Newspaper and traditional media (i.e. big websites) are the worst about this. The random reviews on amazon.com, etc. are the second worst. Reviews on smaller websites and blogs are frequently quite good, but they are also hard to find.

Strangely enough, the opposite effect seems to apply when the item reviewed is not seen as ‘creative’, i.e. video games, computer hardware, automobiles. These reviews are generally overwhelmingly positive to the point of uselessness.

I do not intend to review automobiles on this blog.

However, I do intend to review all sorts of creative material – mostly whatever I have seen most recently (not just new releases or anything. I have no desire to be a professional reviewer). I hope to avoid the constant negativity, yet I intend for then to be more than a list of the things I like. I also am going to try and avoid criticizing the technical aspects of the media in question – i.e. no “terrible acting by so-and-so” or “the plot is overused” – rather I will try to take it as it is, and observe the media as a whole.

Basically I hope to write interesting, yet mostly positive reviews. Semi-critical reviews, if you will.