Gossip Girl's Mid-Season Finale was SPECTACULAR (spoilers)

It became clear Serena and Nate belong together.

That Dan's climb out of Vanessa's friend zone isn't as smooth as it looks.

That Jenny is F*ING badass (I love the growth of this character over the coarse of the three seasons!). And Eric really has lost her.

That Rufus is just as much of a boor and Lily a slut as before. Which is actually kind of refreshing--it's about time people's parents started being bad again, instead of drippy, rich fairy godparents.

My only problem:
The writers (so far, anyway) seem to have no idea what to do with Chuck and Blaire.

Blaire trying to find herself in college could be/started out as a fascinating storyline, and a surprisingly relateable one. But the show has since pulled back, I suspect because someone didn't know what they'd find when they scratched beneath her East Side persona, and were scared to experiment, seeing as she's the heart of the show. BUT it's ridiculous to think she *wouldn't* change, and frankly, everyone else has--she now seems like an artifact of season one. Though in season one, they actually gave her a fair amount of depth.

Chuck is apparently now Mr. Good Guy, which I hate. No, he doesn't have to be on drugs constantly. And yes, it's interesting (in theory) that he basically gave up the drinking once his dad died. But his "growth" hasn't seemed at all organic. For one, nobody has ever asked him about his drinking, which I'm sad about--set up, set up, set up, and yet no punch. And for another--why has his personal philosophy of life completely changed? They attempted to answer it last night--he was trying to become his father--BUT he also wasn't acting at all like his father, in any way other than being into business.

He seemed like a pile of wasted opportunity for much of the season, but the last couple episodes have really turned my stomach:

1. when he kicked the diplomat's son out of the hotel and "rescued" Jenny from him, because the son was a drug dealer. COME ON! For one, *kicked him out*?! Even if Chuck's not into drugs anymore, that seems like a ridiculously indiscreet business move. And it wasn't handled ironically, like this is something an overcompensating kid would do--no, it was handled as though it were the correct move!

2. He basically tells Jenny to just say no?! THAT was a lost opportunity--here's a character who is famously inarticulate about himself, but who gave up drugs apparently cold turkey just a few episodes ago, and he doesn't tell Jenny (of the vastly complicated step-sibling relationship) WHY?! Why drugs might be a bad idea for her, why she should be careful with that guy, why it's retarded to sell drugs at a bar instead of in a private residence? NO INSIGHT?!

And at the end of the episode, it turns out HIS MOTHER IS ALIVE? On the one hand, yes could be interesting seeing his eternal quest for a parent continue...but on the other hand, it feels SO cheap.

If the writers are interested in the parent thing re: Chuck, maybe they should deal with that in his relationship with Blaire. God knows they don't know what else to do with the two of them! Actually, Blaire being really into control and Chuck being super insecure and constantly looking for guidance COULD be really interesting...though I don't know how deep this show would be willing to go into its characters' inner lives.

So, all goes well except for my two favorite characters. It seems as though the writers are at loose ends with those two, though I don't know why. Otherwise, the show is so incredibly taut and well structured, it's always a little intimidating to watch.

But I'll keep doing it somehow :P

Humphery Bogart's last words: "I should never have switched from Scotch to martinis"

Like all of you, I was lying in bed thinking about Supernatural.

Ok, maybe not *all* of you, just the ones emotionally arrested at thirteen years old.

The show presses all the teenage girl romance buttons: it stars two beautiful guys with sad back-stories and hearts of gold. And I love it.

But tonight, I started thinking about how important Dean's drinking has become to Supernatural. In the world of the show, his drinking is a sign of: his manly vigor; his toughness; his vulnerability. In short, his drinking is a big stamp of hotness.

Then, I started thinking, of course, that this show comes from the CW. The same people who brought us 17-year old, alcoholic fan-dance club owner Chuck.

And I don't get it. Ok, so the average CW viewer is maybe fourteen. And that high school freshman might very well think of drinking as adult and sexy. But really, writers? I know *you* know that drinking is... kind of gross.

I like booze as much as anybody, but really-- being (girl)friends with somebody who drinks too much is HORRIBLE.

-sweats gin and hogs the bed because he's *knocked out*? yay!
-loses it at a party, but is too heavy for you to get home on your own? yay!
-shirtless and sobbing in public? yay!
-slobbery kisses (and etc)? yay!
-happens to be standing there when he needs to pee, so, of course, pees *right there*? yay!
-Excersists dinner all over your toilet, but is too sick to clean it up? yay!
-has paramedics invade your apt. or sends you on a trip to the hospital b/c he's in over his head, drink-wise? yay!
-pretending his behavior doesn't reflect badly on you? yay!

Not "very special episode" bad, but also not as as cute as pouring some brown liquid in a glass or down a pretty boy's throat.

I'm not saying Supernatural or Gossip Girl has to be a PSA (god forbid). But I do think that having characters swilling it while driving, or drinking *all the time* with no social consequences is inauthentic and (even) a lost opportunity.

Seriously, it puts a different spin on Sam's behavior when you think-- forty hours a week, he's stuck in a car driven by a drinker. For one, it makes more sense that he seems to kind of hate Dean lately (forty hours a week stuck next to a sad drunk?! aaagh). For another, it makes more sense when Sam moans about Dean being weak.

And it puts a different spin on the whole Blaire/Chuck relationship (at least for me) when you think-- here's a smart and idealistic but often self-destructive girl trying to tie herself to a drunk. In those terms, I want to scream at her to run.

Why do you think Supernatural and Gossip Girl shows so much drinking, but so little drunk?

(bang bang) My Baby Shot Me Down

Anybody else see Gossip Girl last night?

Anybody else worried Chuck's going to kill himself?

"I won't be around"?!

Ok, maybe I'm surrounded by especially unstable/dramatic people, but if somebody was getting wasted alone in his room, and came out to say he's thinking of disappearing....

WHERE IS ERIC? I thought the dude was actually friends with Chuck, AND he tried to kill himself (why, btw?!) *last year*. Jenny, you know all that-- could you call him, please?

Jeez, I actually find Ed Westwick a really subtle actor. I KNOW! The guy who plays CHUCK?! you ask?

But I was really impressed last night with how he played a drunk person. Like, a seriously sh*tfaced person. He didn't make Chuck look like a fool, just like someone who had been drinking *way* too much. And I would be happy if they would finally acknowedge that he's an alcoholic.

When I first started watching the show, I didn't really think about his drinking. I'm half French, I like my alcohol, I thought it was normal. But eventually, I realized that the character is drinking hard liquor in nearly every scene. AND, his character actually makes TONS of sense if you read him as drunk *all the time*.

That weird voice thing, for one. Moving too slowly. Looking at people too intently. Over-reacting to everything, but in a totally nonsensicle way.

And, as a guy who recently filmed a YouTube PSA about alcholism on Gossip Girl said, the way everyone discribes him as "eccentric."

So yeah, Chuck's obviously a huge mess, and I've found the last few episodes really disturbing because of it. I literally find it difficult to watch his scenes-- does anybody else feel that way? I know, I know-- just a self-pitying poor little rich boy character.

But ironically, I find that Chuck's a gentleman for the most part (started feeling this way when he was *SO* nice/polite to Lily/Mrs. Bass, and I also like that he brings gifts to people's houses when he visits them. Well-raised, as my mother would say). He's always ready to help his friends, and doesn't say/do anything when they walk all over him later.

Serena, why do you expect Chuck to support you when you're running from the law/Georgiana, but talk to him like he's a piece of crap? She's the one who got him kicked out of the Bass/Van Der Woodson suite, remember-- and didn't get him back in when it turned out he was innocent! And yeah, he's done her wrong (in the pilot, when he's a *total* freak), but she obviously trusted him later, because she ran to him when she got into trouble.

Blaire, are you seriously an idiot? There is *NO* way Nate would ever be supportive of you or help you get out of the slightest mistake. His dad maxed out Nate's family loyalty card last season, and besides-- you'll never be family. On the other hand, you don't even have to ask Chuck to help you-- he's the one that swooped in when even Serena didn't want to deal with your mini-meltdown.

Lily, why were you so pressed to get Chuck in the apartment if you thought it was fine to leave him to his own devices? I understand why he doesn't think he can trust you! I wouldn't trust your Bart-dumping ass any further than last week. And now you're inviting the Humphrey clan to live in Chuck's hotel? Seriously? Could you get it together until the seniors leave for college, at least? Could you *please* plan a mother-son day with him? He would eat it up with a spoon! Actually, you should plan a day with him where he shows you/helps you how to do something he knows better than you do-- though I don't know what that is. Or, everyone could take a vacation-- Serena wants it, you and Rufus want it, Chuck needs it, and Jenny could stay home if she's freaked/too intense as usual. Whatever, you said you would be a mother to him, he obviously cares about that (raged against you after his dad died, saved you from his uncle, asked to come live with you-- why do you think he *asked* by the way? He *wants* to be around you), and then you drop the ball. UUUUGH.

Nate- whatever. You're so obviously the most self-centered person on Earth. I don't care what your reasoning was for ditching Chuck in the middle of his sodden pity-party, or your reasoning for running to Blaire-- you're the most emotionally unavailable person on Earth. Your relationship to Chuck is *such* a dysfunctional high school romance. He's pining away for you, and you don't give a sh*t, just ditch him for your (girl)friends. I totally get how you missed your father's addiction for so long, btw.

Anyway, it's like now that he's not actually passed out in Thailand and his father's been dead for a whole two months or whatever-- everyone's just *over* him... which is a problem b/c instead of calling them on it and asking for attention, he just gets upset and goes silent and drinks. Which I get, because I, too, am a big fan of the "bottling up" method of anger management. But it is SERIOUSLY difficult for me to watch.

Anybody else?

I love the smell of desperation in the morning

A few days ago, "Amanda the Aspiring Television Writer" wrote a blog post on how to increase a character's likability (it's a great post- go read it!).

(by the way, literary agent Nathan Bransford has a post on a similar topic here: http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/2009/02/sympathetic-vs-unsympathetic-characters.html His blog is fantastic- read it all, if you can!)

Amanda writes that understanding the reason behind a character's motivation makes that character compelling (which is even better than likability). The easier a character's motivation is to understand, she says, the more compelling that character is. So, characters fighting for survival is super compelling, because they have a primal, explicable goal.

I disagree.

It's nice to know why somebody wants something (hence the popularity of backstory), but what makes that character and his/her goal compelling, to me, is simply that the character is desperate for it.

Ex.

Field of Dreams is a great movie, with a strong narrative drive. We get hints about why the main character wants to build a baseball field (it's a way to connect with his father), but what really pulls the story forward is that the protagonist is willing to do nearly anything to get that field. He makes a fool of himself, connects with a disconnected writer, pours money into it, strains his familial relationships- anything he has to do to get that field, he does.

He's compelling, which makes him likable.

But heroes don't often want anything *that* badly- their moral limits are what make them heroes. A hero never becomes so desperate that s/he'll stoop to *anything*, because if s/he were, s/he'd eventually stoop to villainy and would no longer be the hero. Heroes can't become *that* desperate, so they are limited in how compelling they are.

The way to get around this is to make heroes desperate for multiple things, so that their desires *seem* incredibly deep, but their limits make sense. Ie, a heroine is desperate to save herself from being eaten by a monster. The heroine is also desperate for Love Interest to love her. Her desire for survival has limits imposed upon it by her desire for love, and vice versa. The dilemma is compelling, so she is, too- without becoming a villain.

Crafting a compelling villain is easier, though, because the marks of a villain are: 1. a desire so strong they are willing to do literally ANYTHING to get it, and 2. an inability to compromise. An uncompromising, desperate character is interesting because s/he's unpredictable, and because no matter what, s/he'll keep pulling the narrative along until s/he gets what s/he wants.

The construction of a villain especially interesting in television, because on television, the villain *might* go years and years (in real time!) without getting what s/he wants. The best case scenario is that over those (frustrating!) years and years, the villain's desire gets ever deeper, her/his plots grow ever more complex, and s/he becomes ever more compelling.

But dramatic tension can't usually last for years.

Some shows try to keep the villain from getting what they want, but eventually run out of credible obstacles. In this situation, the villain keeps the same goal, but her/his obstacles change. Since a character is defined by his actions, and since his actions are all *re*actions to the circumstances, ridiculous circumstances/obstacles weaken characters. This is just the story of a show/situation slowly going stale.

OR, the villain's desire may change/become vague... ie, in Heroes. *What* does Sylar want? For the past couple seasons, his quests have become more and more random, pointless, and unfocused, to the point that the character feels random and pointless- and no longer all that compelling. This is the story of a villain exploding.

In order to circumvent the problem, Buffy used a new villain every season. That led to too weak villains. How scared could a viewer be when she knew Buffy would defeat that particular season's Big Bad in episode 13/22.

Heroes also started out with the one season Big Bad technique, but couldn't get rid of Sylar when he gained such a great following. Which led to too much misplaced focus on Sylar, which led to Sylar taking over the show in a horrible, weird way- with a rash of disconnected and ridiculous storylines that didn't have to do with his original desires.

Gossip Girl has (so far) had a near-miss with a similar "villains are so much more compelling than heroes that they take over the story" problem. Chuck started out as a pretty bad villain (serial wanna-be rapist in the first episode) but he proved so interesting that he was adopted into the fold. Blaire and Serena started out as equal leads, but in the past season (season 2) Serena has become queen of the C plot, and Blaire has been A all the way. Gossip Girl is so well written, however, and the characters are all so driven, complex, and have such singular POVs, that it has room to play with its dark/light dynamics in a way black-hat/white-hat Heroes can't.

Gossip Girl also has an easier time of it because all the characters have *social* goals as opposed to concrete ones. Their goals shift organically as the power dynamics shift, and with every goal-shift, the characters run into a new range of (credible, interesting) obstacles. The stories stay fresh and the desperation stays high without forcing a final confrontation.

So: desperation is great! Especially for stand alone novels, movies, or plays. It pulls the narrative forward and makes characters compelling. But how can a character keep up that level of uncompromising intensity for *years* on a television show without turning cheesy/predictable, or loosing his/her bite?

deep throat tells all

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

best path to stardom: eat sh*t and die

Gossip Girl Season 1:

Serena is the obvious lead, though Blaire becomes a lead in her own right fairly quickly into the season.  

v.

Gossip Girl Season 2:

Blaire is the obvious lead.  Serena is relegated to the romantic subplots, etc.

Maybe this is unfair: I've only seen about half of each season.  But I was a shocked at how important Serena was in Season 1 after "knowing" her as only the lame friend in Season 2.  (Vice versa with Chuck).  

But then I realized why Serena seems so unimportant now: when she had bad things happening to her- in all facets of her life- in Season 1, she was a lead.  In season 2, she's pretty charmed, so she's just a side-character-caricature.

Meanwhile, Blaire has had more and more bad stuff piled on her left and right.  Hence: her importance has grown.  (Same with Chuck).

So: the lead/hero is the person the bad sh*t happens to.  GOOD TO KNOW!

I also wonder: how much was planned out in advance?  

Here's Chuck's "evil" to "good" turn around so far:

Episode 1: wanna-be rapist.  DOUBLE rapist!  

Episode 3: helps Blaire, but by being a HUGE asshole 

Episode 4: saves his best friend, Nathan, from some predatory older guy

Episode 6: gets his comeuppance when Jenny (a freshman he tried to rape in ep. 1) leaves him naked on a rooftop.

Episode 7: genuinely cares about his dad (stresses over business plan, wants to prove himself)... AND Blaire (is there for her after her breakup)

Episode 8: tells Blaire he's into her, buys her a necklace, and really seals the deal.

That HAD to be thought out before the pilot was shot- it fits together SO tightly.  But I'm interested to see if Chuck's (re-)fall is as tightly plotted, or if it feels more like the writers said, "sh*t, Chuck's more fun evil."  

Wonder how the ups and downs of Chuck's fortunes has to do with his importance in the show- the more important he needs to be for the plot, the worse his "life" is?  

i need a f*cking epidural!

Today I entered the last quarter of the ZOMBIE book.  

-Turns out the villain is really a hero.  And the hero is really a (the?) villain.  Who'd have thought?

-I sort of don't want to finish, because rewriting scares the HELL out of me.

-The story has exploded, and every scene from here on in is pretty intense.  That means I can't write thousands upon thousands of words a day.

Last night, I was EXHAUSTED, from writing 4K worth of fights, deaths, people falling in love, etc.  I drank too much and whined to my friends and missed the season finale of Nip/Tuck.  That'll teach me.  Today, I only wrote about 2.5 K and watched WAY too much Gossip Girl.  BUT, I didn't make a fool out of myself, so all the better.  

It's kind of like, I'm coming to the end of my pregnancy.  And these last days are scary and tough.  But the shit's really going to hit the fan once I actually give birth, because then I'll have a goddamned infant to mold and turn into an independent, beautiful thing. 

What if she's not good enough?  What if no one likes her?  What if she's all ugly and stupid and I don't even like her?  AAACK!  

But Jesus, Sasha- buck up!  And stop with the bad language.  

There.  

Now back to Gossip Girl.  If only they had more knife-fights, etc, it really would be the best show ever made.

S: I was here. K: How do you know? *cue creepy music* S: Because I remember

That was the exchange that officially ended my time as a Heroes viewer.  

Ok, that's a lie because I have a Heroes spec that I need to keep fairly current.  (I know, I know- Heroes is a terrible show to spec because it's serialized and on the bubble.  But it's hard to find a show with a lot of fighting, and it's the only show in which people can use their mind control powers or their flying or super-freeze or whatever during that fighting.  Plus, like I wrote yesterday, I think Sylar could be a cool character.)  

But since when is memory a superpower?  And none of the plot-lines make sense!  Whatever, I'm not going to vent about it now.  But if any of you have stuck with Heroes, please feel free to do the venting for me :)

Anyway, tonight's the Nip/Tuck in which Christian decides to be a vampire.  Yes.  Seriously.  Or, at least that's how it looked on the pro-mo.  But those guys know what they're doing- I'm going to watch, for sure.

And, I NEEEEEED to get caught up on Gossip Girl.  At first I didn't watch because I'm not into those 90210 shows- just not my thing.  But I've caught a few by accident, and they're REALLY good (and more like a hard-hitting Nip/Tuck than 90210 anyway).  So good that last night, I watched the re-run, even though that was one of the three episodes I'd seen before.

Reasons to love Gossip Girl:

1.  Emotions make sense.  Nobody does anything without a good reason.  People try to be good.  But when they need to protect themselves or feel hurt, they lash out.  

2.  It takes place in an alternate reality in which a kid can both sign adoption papers and have a cocktail at the opera- at the same time.  Though, to be fair, I wouldn't card Chuck Bass, either.

3.  The scenes are exactly the right length.  Which sounds stupid- but is VERY difficult to get right.  The scenes move quickly, without feeling like it gives anyone the short shrift.  They throw the right characters together at the right moments (a lot of shows, ie Lost and Heroes, make HUGE problems for themselves because they don't bring characters together so we can see their reactions to the things happening around them.  The reaction is just as important as the action!  When we can't witness reactions, it creates a disconnect between the characters and the audience, and the characters and each other.  

And the scenes multi-task.  For example- in last night's episode, Blaire gets a phone call and decides she has to apologize to a teacher RIGHT THEN, so she leaves the opera hall right before the show gets started.  The next scene is with Chuck at the hall's bar.  His scene gets started, and a few seconds in, we see Blaire run past in the background.  So, we know what's happening with Blaire and what's happening with Chuck, and where everyone is physically- but in the most elegant, efficient possible way.  

The show is very well paced all-together, which I love because I'm a twitchy, restless person who yells at the T.V. and wonders off and etc.  

4.  And, obviously, everything looks great- the cast, the clothes, the photography.