Why does House work?

How come House is such a good show?

It's about very boring yet arrogant people solving mysteries none of us layman could possibly hope to solve. And at the end the "bad guy" isn't punished or even psychoanalyzed, because the "bad guy" is a f*cking disease. No motive at all!

Even the doctors don't have motives for what they do--money doesn't seem to come into it, and nor does empathy.

So the plots are incomprehensible, the characters are unappealing cardboard, and the clothes suck. What's left?

Dialogue? Not anything special. Pretty workmanlike, really. Can you think of any memorable lines? I can't. I can think of the *way* Hugh Laurie says certain things, but not what he actually says.

Cinematography/special effects? They've pretty much dumped the "body chemical POV" so it couldn't be that. And as said before--the clothes suck.

Exoticism? Maybe the first fifty times we saw the hospital, but all these seasons later? No way.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll? From the show in which a NUN almost died from her IUD?! Uh-uh.

So what is it? Is it truly:

good/reliable structure + 1 charismatic lead = HIT?

None of this is a take-down of the show--I eat that sh*t up. I've run out of Houses to Hulu for God's sake. But it's a case of the "bumblebee flies anyway"--everyone SHOULD find House hideously boring or incomprehensible. I honestly want to know:

How can this show work?

The Value of Hulu

Fringe is my new favorite show.

Of course I tried it for an episode when it first began to air--but I kept forgetting when it was on, and the episodes I happened across were a little hit or miss.

When I ran out of House and Bones episodes on Hulu, however, I decided to give it another shot.

That episode was all right, though disgusting. But it was the only thing on Hulu that I was at all interested in, and the TV schedule is overstuffed with Xmas specials at the moment (blah).

So I watched the Season 2 winter hiatus finale--and it was AWESOME.

And it made me want to find out more about the show's mythology, so I bought Season 1 on iTunes.

It's great! The writers run their concepts right to the wall (such as: if someone lets out an thermo-electric charge when he's upset, it would create a ghastly snowball effect. Or, if you want to do a Monster-in-the-House plot, what better "house" than a plane? It's a microcosm of people, and you CAN'T escape!). And the acting is *phenomenal*, esp. from the three leads.

It's also fascinating for a Lost-o-phile like me, because the two shows have a lot of shared motifs: daddy issues, obviously, but also the "knowlegable older (maybe evil?) woman" and a certain back-alley depiction of medical science. There's also the first season's soundtrack which was apparently stolen from Lost wholesale--that's kind of annoying actually.

Of course, the scenes are super-efficient, the dialogue disarmingly good, and the show's found a perfect balance between procedure and mythological/character growth. Though it can be a little too light or slightly derivative at times, I'm hooked.

So here goes my third Fringe episode of the day!

Bleak Condominium (Nip/Tuck Spoilers)

Wow, Nip/Tuck last night was a sucker-punch. Here's a quick summary:

A/B: Christian owes the IRS $400,000, plus more on credit card bills. He asks Sean to take out an equity loan on the business, but Sean refuses. He tells Christian he'll spot him the money for now--they're family, after all. Christian is touched.

A: But then Sean's long lost meth-head brother comes back from beyond the grave. He needs money and plastic surgery, but he's ready to open up a whitling shop and go clean. Sean gives Christian's loan to his brother, instead. Christian seethes.

B: A father and his (adopted, teenage) son come to the practice. They want Christian to make the son look more like his father.

A: Christian refuses to let the brother (Brendan) stay at the apartment he shares with Sean. He keeps pushing Brendan--screaming at him, etc, until both Brendan and Sean are angry at Christian. Sean says he'll move out of Christian's place and get a new apartment with his brother.

B: In recovery, the son asks the father to go surfing, but the father doesn't have time. Christian offers to take him out. Turns out the father's an international banker. Could he help Christian out in return?

A: Things of Christian's keep going missing: his gold watch, etc. He accuses Brendan, and it seems as though Brendan's the only one with opportunity. Is Christian winning? No--when he comes home next, there's a noseless cokehead hanging out...he's Brendan's best friend, who Sean has agreed to fix, for free. Christian blows up. Brendan asks him what's in it for Sean, being Christian's friend? There's not really an answer.

B: Christian takes the kid out surfing, but when they come back the kid starts weeping. Turns out, his father uses him as a prop in sex parties. Christian, who apparently had the same kind of childhood (!) is aghast.

A: Sean fixes the cokehead, but within the day, he catches the guy snorting...with Brendan (sober?) right next to him. Goodbye and good riddance, Sean says to his brother.
B: He roughs the dad up, and demands $400,000 in blackmail.

A: That night, Sean meets his brother outside his house, and they forgive each other. But when they go inside, Christian's waiting. Brendan has stolen his diamond cufflinks! Christian calls the police, and Sean takes his side. He kicks Brendan out.

B: But Christian gives the kid the $400,000. Go make your own family, he tells him. Family should be the people who take care of you, not abuse you.

A/B: Seems all ends well for Christian, right? Silently, he has a cigar and cognac on the deck while Sean chatters happily behind him. But in montage, we then see:
Christian selling his own diamond cufflinks and watch.
Christian take out a loan on the business, in Sean’s name.

Christian shares his cigar with Sean, and pats him on the back. Family, right?

--------------

So, technically I think the A story was Brandon v. Christian, the B story was Christian and the sex kid, and the C story was the $400,000. Interestingly, the ads for this episode were all about the money--they made it look very light and "topical."

But it was so complex! The whole time, we're waiting for Christian to save Sean--he even says at one point that being Sean's protector is his job! And when he gives the kid the money, it's a great moment because we see Christian as an older version of that kid--a version that has made it.

It's only at the end of the episode that we see he's actually a different version of the *father*.

And this is mid-season of the show's LAST SEASON. THIS is what they want to go out on. Wow, wow, wow. I'll probably have more on this later, but right now I'm blown away by this episode's elegance and emotional punch.

or maybe it's the readers who have the power

This week Herta Muller won the Nobel Prize and Hilary Mantel won the Booker.

Not that I generally like the Booker Prize books (almost always, I find them needlessly intricate and dense, which feels melodramatic... though Wolf Hall, the most recent win, is a historical novel about Henry VIII's court-- which is probably dramatic enough in its own right to break the cycle of boring settings and frustratingly "lyrical" language).

Not that I generally read the Nobel laureates (why so serious?).

But on the heels of my post that more people (especially women) should be more selfish and protective of their writing, the gender of both winners stood out.

Maybe it's not that women are too softhearted or servile or distracted. Maybe just as many women try as hard to write as men do. Do as many succeed to critical acclaim?

I don't know. *I* read a lot of female writers, and most my favorite writers are women:

Ann Tyler
Ruth Randell
Jane Smiley
Zadie Smith
Margaret Atwood
Z.Z. Packer

could write grocery lists and I'd read them, they're so high in my esteem... and those are just the writers who have books laying open in front of me as I type this. Because only a few prizes that go to books I usually like (the Whitbread/Costa *first* novel award, the Edger), I don't pay much attention to who wins the vast majority of them. But thinking about it, women are well represented with the (first novel) Costa prize, too, and the latest Edgar breakout star is Tana French (also a first novel winner).

It's strange that women are wayyyyy better represented in awards for first novels than for the awards generally, though, isn't it?

I don't know much about this subject, so if anyone does, please chime in. Maybe a lot of women show "talent" at the beginning, but get burned by their publishers, or burnt out emotionally, or maybe I'm just a first novel lover and don't pay enough attention to the industry's critical darlings generally.

What's going on with female writers and acclaim?

Quick: Where's the Crook to Get Her Offstage?

Lullabies for Little Criminals by Heather O'Neill kept me up all night.

It's the story of an 11/12/13 year old girl growing up in Montreal's red light district. She's got a junkie father, dead mother, and lots of neighborhood friends. Sort of Maniac Magee for grown ups. And without the race stuff.

It's a beautiful book: chock full of interesting images and insights. It reads like you're in a mystical child's head.

BUT-- the last eighth almost ruins it. It turns into a saccharine, weirdly Victorian social novel. Duex Ex Machinas creak around, and I half expected the kid to succumb to opium addiction or willful drowning.

AND-- by that point, I was gritting my teeth because there is a metaphor in LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH. The metaphors are beautiful and true and blah blah, but they're also coming so fast it's a fucking metaphor blizzard.

The novel is definitely worth reading-- I got it out of the library and am thinking of buying it just to see it on my shelf. But O'Neill, couldn't you have kept it together for fifty extra pages? Or just chopped them off wholesale? Not everything needs to be tied with a bow. It's ok to just stop if the character's arc is over. There needn't be redemption and hope and coming together and all that Happy Holiday crap.

I wish I had stopped before the last eighth, but otherwise it's the book I wish I'd been smart enough to write.

Get in. Get out. Get going.

Pillars of the Earth and World Without End, both by Ken Follett, are desert-island books. The kind of books that you could subsist on for years (if necessary, God forbid).

They are in a naive, "He felt scared"/"She went home," style. They are set during the Middle Ages. They are about a cathedral being built and repaired (respectively). And they're riveting.

The plotting is magnificent. Each scene starts out with a feeling of dread (Ex. The little boys flocked to the hanging). The scene's beginning becomes its middle when the central problem is introduced (Ex. A pregnant girl has also come to watch the hanging-- of her noble lover).

The middle of each scene is a series of twists and turns as various schemes play out. Finally, a scheme is either beneficial for each of the scene's parties, or the POV character has run out of options-- that's the climax.

And at the end of each scene the POV character has:
1. a defeat or triumph
2. a new resolution for what to do
3. an emotional change

Once the scene has climaxed, it ends IMMEDIATELY. There are a couple lines of white space, and POP we're in another scene (once again, filled with dread).

The books have momentum out of this world; they're *never* dull, I *always* want to read on. The masterful plotting is part of it (and imagine: these are books in which not much actually happens. The characters are peasants or children or monks, who generally lead quiet lives). Plotting like that takes a lot of skill and a lot of talent.

But ending after a climax doesn't. I resolve to work at Follett-style plot structure, and use Follett-style white space.

was it the genes or the fertilizer that made this taste so good?

Last night I saw a (recent) Law and Order: SVU rerun.  And it was FABULOUS.

Ok, I'm so-so about Law and Order in general... mostly because the stories follow the EVIL MOTHER LEADS SON INTO A LIFE OF CRIME formula.  Which I find a little sexist, in the same old, same old Adam and Eve vain.

But I love three particular episodes, though they all follow that format. 

Two are Criminal Intent episodes, which tend toward the evil older woman motif more than the other Law and Order incarnations (sometimes branching out into evil middle-aged effeminate man).  

The first is about a woman who picks her son up from foster care and leads him into a life of drugs and pawn shop robbery-murders.  It's a super skeezy storyline, what with a dead girlfriend hidden in a trunk which becomes a table for shooting up drugs, etc.  I like because the story is INCREDIBLY skeezy, while remaining completely chaste- an unusual combination.

The second stars Stephen Colbert, and he's WONDERFUL.  In "The Saint," he's a super uptight forger who lives with his manic-depressive mother... her main problem seems to be that she's SUPER into giving to charity, so his problem is keeping her from giving away all his money/things.  I like it because Stephen Colbert is the most intense person ever.  He carries the story- he gives it pop.  I'm not an actress, so I don't know how he's doing it.  Charisma?

And the third show is from SVU, and is the one I saw last night: "Ballerina."  It was about an adopted son who lives with his mother, an actress has-been who has watched Mommie Dearest ten million times.  She's even got this weird silk turban thing to wear in bed.  People die all over the place, but the main story is- what really is the relationship between mother and son?  What would they do for each other?  

Carol Bernett is the mother, and she's suitably creepy.  But the son is WONDERFUL.  He's got these tight little gestures he uses, and he's got this really light skin that got really blotchy whenever the scene got intense.  He was SO much fun to watch.  I kept looking at the clock and thinking, 'oh no!  Only twenty minutes left!' or 'oh no!  Only ten minutes left!' etc.  Law and Order episodes are SUPER predictable, so I think that's a miracle.

And MATTHEW LILLARD plays the son.  Yes, the guy from Scream and Scooby Doo.  Weird, huh?  He obviously went balls to the wall with this Law and Order part, and he was mesmerizing.  How come his credits aren't more interesting?  I guess he just hasn't been given a fair shake.  

HEY, MATTHEW LILLARD, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I'M GONNA WRITE SOMETHING JUST FOR YOU, OK BABY?

Because it is painful to see good talent go to waste.  It's not just anybody who can make their skin go all crazy-realistic-but-not-gross-blotchy when they're actor crying.  Seriously.

OK, so I guess the real question is: I think script writing is SO important.  So why are two out of my three favorite Law and Order episodes blah script-wise and only awesome acting-wise?  

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.

my shallow heart's the only thing that's beating

A movie (traditionally) has a single major climax: a life-defining, a moment of supreme victory and/or supreme defeat.  That's why vengeance stories work so well as movies (ie, Die Hard).

A television show starts with a character or group of characters in an especially trying situation.  Every week, that situation tries the character(s) in a different way- a way that is especially trying.  The characters on a T.V. show are tested every week, with no end- or reward- in sight.  That's why redemption stories work so well as T.V. shows (ie, Angel).

Ok, ok, so a woman turned Angel evil.  Another woman made him good again- until she had sex with him.  After that, he was evil again, so she killed him.  But he came back and they could be together- and he could be good- as long as they NEVER HAD SEX AGAIN.  A little gross.  I know Joss Whedon is a feminist and blah blah blah, but... still, a little gross.  

Strangely enough, Sylar on Heroes has a similar story:

1. Cute blond goads him into murder.

2. Goes on a spree.

3. Tries to stop, so OF COURSE, turns to a woman for help (only with him, it was his mother).

4. And with him, she was the one who got killed.

5. But of course, he tried to be good for ANOTHER woman (thought she was his biological mother).

6. Went on another spree when it turned out she lied.  

With Angel, it was sex that set him off.  With Sylar it's lying, I guess.

YET.  

Angel worked, I think.  At times, his quest for redemption had a material goal: to become human.  Ultimately, the journey was the goal in and of itself.  

Sylar just sort of switches back and forth- between "I'm a murder!"  and "I'm not a murderer!"  Maybe over time, his story will become more subtle and less obviously goal-oriented.   He's the last remaining saving grace on Heroes, in my opinion, though his character has gotten a serious bludgeoning this season.

Which is why I'm excited for the new episode tonight, I guess.  Despite how infuriating that show is, and how I can't get through an episode without one or two drinks.  

Maybe I'm just excited for those one or two drinks.

But I keep watching because I think Sylar has real potential to be interesting.  Once again, he's a character with a REAL dilemma.  He can either be a murderous "somebody" or a moral "nobody." (unlike Claire and her- I'm immortal!  But that sucks!  "dilemma," etc.).  Even if I don't agree with how the Heroes writers are dealing with Sylar's redemption story, I am always curious.

Which reminds me:

I put a post-it up on my mirror that says "Dilemma!  Paradox!  Compromise of self!" because I don't want to forget the stuff I learned from watching hour upon hour of Star Wars.  Which, btw, I'm still thinking about buying.  Worth it?  I dunno.

LIFE IS AN STD, ALWAYS FATAL (paraphrased from the New York Times)

How hard do you like to work when reading a book?

I don't like to work at all.  I read books for entertainment, and when someone reads my work, I want them to be entertained.

To me, writing is like engineering a roller coaster or dancing ballet.  If the audience can see you sweat, you've gone wrong.  The performance must look as effortless and be as thrilling as magic.

But why do other people read books?  Because the last major free-standing book review in the country doesn't seem to have the same reading/writing philosophy as I do.  

I live near Washington, D.C., which recently got rid of its Sunday book review section.  So, I've been reading the New York Times Sunday review more faithfully.  

The Times review is A LOT different from the Post's Book World.  I disliked some of those differences as a teenager but like them now; Times reviewers are more likely to use bold language, be unequivical in their judgments, give bad reviews.  But one of my dislikes still holds up; the Times reviewers also tend to like more cerebral books.  Books that, to me, don't sound like any fun- that don't sound enchanting.

Example: in a review about Lowboy, a book about a schizophrenic teenager, the reviewer says,

"One of the novel's many pleasures is just going along: putting yourself fully in the hands of the story and its author, being drawn in, gradually immersed, making connections, appreciating those seeds as they bloom into the tale's developing complexity, danger and tragedy.  By the time it all falls into place, the reader is long hooked and turning back is not an option."

This is from a favorable review, for a supposedly exciting book.  But STILL, the reviewer wants to be tricked into reading it, into liking it?  

I also like to give myself over the writer and go into a kind of waking dream- that's what's so fun about reading!  But being gradually immersed, consciously making connections, appreciating the novel as you're reading it: those joys sound to me like an English major making the best of assigned reading, not a reader lost in a new world.  (I've been an English major, so I know ;) ).

Where's the joy?

don't worry, we'll have R2 with us. ha. ha.

Correction:

Watched Burn Notice yesterday, and a lot of the scenes DID cut out on time... but the back and forth *during* the scenes was sometimes very slow, which made things awkward.  Which I blame on the directing, not the editing- esp., because it's worse in some episodes than in others, depending on who is directing.  

Maybe this is a new style?  Because I felt the same way watching Twilight.  During on-screen conversations that are supposed to be really meaningful and sweet, etc, there would be all these loooong (awkward) pauses that made me (though apparently not anyone else?) twitchy.  

Back to our regularly scheduled programming:

I (used to) play The Force Game.  How to play: watch Star Wars episodes 2 or 3 (2 AND 3 if you're really feeling brave).  Every time the word "force" is said, you take a drink.  

So usually when I watch episodes 2 or 3, I'm really just "watching" and making my own versions of the sound effects and doing other *sshole things with my friends.  But last weekend, I happened to rent Episode 2 (ahem).  The other day, I was talking to a friend about the force game and how ridiculous certain parts of the movie are, so I turned it on to show her... and ended up being sucked in and watching it all.

LOVED IT.  Not "this dialogue is so corny I'm going to choke on my taquitos" loved it- seriously, "wanted to cry when Anakin killed those sand-people and maybe actually shed a tear or two but don't tell anybody" loved it.  WHY?

Today I watched it with commentary to try and figure out how a movie that clumsy, that wooden, managed to suck me in and angst the hell out of me.  But I still couldn't get it (because half the commentary is from the special effects guys, and the other half is exultation of the great god Star Wars Seventies Version).

Later tonight, Episode 3 came on TV and I got sucked into watching it TOO even though I should have tried a LITTLE harder to earn some cool points by doing ANYTHING else.

WHY??? Why would I feel the need to watch these movies over and over?  Why would I think about buying them?  How can I sit through three hours of children's sci-fi when I can't get through ANY OTHER MOVIE SHOWN ON TELEVISION?

What's their hook?  Episode 2: whiny adolescent boy falls in love, while his mentor unsuccessfully hunts a wanna-be assassin.  Episode 3: whiny, teary man betrays everybody while his mentor(s) turn against him.  

And listening to George Lucas on the commentary: these more recent movies were obviously vanity projects.  Every scene is meant to lead up to or echo something from the 70s movies, every decision seems to have been made with those movies in mind.  The more recent three movies seem to have been pulled wholesale from Lucas's fantasy/dream life, with all the boring repetition and senseless symbolism inherent in that.  They are (expensive!) fan-fiction.

YET.  Something works.  Something IS compelling, even amongst all the mess.  What IS that diamond in the rough?

It damn sure isn't the dialogue.  (Here's a representative sample: in Episode 3 when Anakin and Padme are arguing- as ever- about some boring stuff.  Out of nowhere, she says: "Hold me.  Like you did by the lake on Naboo.  So long ago, when there was nothing but our love.  No politics, no plotting, no war.")

It's not the action (for once), because that's pretty much: REALLY long chase (boring), or REALLY long light-saber battle (interesting, but repetitive)

It's not the structure.  From the commentary, it seemed that Lucas had ALL KINDS of world-building he wanted to do, and ALL KINDS of loose ends he wanted to tie up- to the point, where it seemed every scene was just exposition (to him).  

Besides, I couldn't care less about all that trade federation/republic/politics stuff, and many viewings later I still can't really follow it- and that was supposed to be the scary/adventure part of the story- the plot's meat.  According to Lucas, the love story between Anakin and Padme was just a side plot, and that love story didn't make TONS of sense anyway.  

Honestly (from the commentary), his approach seemed very heavy on the structure, at the expense of play and freshness.  And maybe because he's SO close to the material, plot-wise, his priorities seemed out of whack.

So what plot lines are we really following?  The only one that sticks out to me is: Anakin's descent into the "dark side." 

I think it's the character of Anakin that sells Episodes 2 and 3.  He's got a compelling dilemma.  He loves people (ie, his mother, his wife, his mentor/surrogate father Obi Won).  Yet Jedi Knights must be selfless, and think only of the group- they can't have attachments, and they can't let people become attached to them.  

If Anakin keeps love in his life- if he stays a part of life at all- he can't be a Jedi anymore... but if he isn't a Jedi anymore, he no longer deserves his friend's/family's love.  

That character and his story ARE compelling, despite the awkward dialogue and hair-pieces.  

To me, his struggle is between his ability/need to give all of himself (to love, to ambition, etc) and the healthful rationality of temperance, moderation, reserve- and that's a struggle I relate to a lot.  Just as, I guess a lot of people relate to Bella's struggle in Twilight, between keeping her man but changing herself, or losing her man but staying true to herself.  

In both Anakin's and Bella's stories, the dilemma is: how much of myself should I compromise?  How much can I compromise and remain me?  

Lucas and Meyer both seem to think compromise to become one with the Jedi/Edward is necessary.  Anakin stayed true to himself and his passions, and look what happened with THAT.  Meanwhile, Bella 2.0 is frolicking around the world with the love of her....death.  

Jeez, really?  Don't compromise and you're evil, compromise and you're dead?

Regardless, both Twilight and Star Wars are carried by a single character with a compelling dilemma.  Wow.  

Makes me think: what are my characters' dilemmas?  God, how can I make them that awesome?

frankie says RELAX

Screw all you people who hate on Lost.  

How could you NOT be effected this week when Jack was freaking out bearded style, Ben was regretful but absolute, and Locke was (f*cking) suicidal?

Seriously, every Locke episode makes me cry.  

Maybe this is why:

"Strong reasons make strong actions" (forget who came up with that... but I didn't) and strong actions make strong T.V.

Because lonely, failure Locke wants so much to be accepted (strong reason), he leaves his beloved island to get back in touch with the "lost" islanders (strong action),  BUT he is rejected by them anyway (strong TV)... and I cry.

Because incompetent, failure Locke wants so much to save the people on the island by getting the Oceanic Six back "home" (strong reason), he will go to any lengths- even death- to bring them back (strong action).  Ultimately, he gets his way (strong T.V.)... and I'm thrilled.

Jeez, just like with Christian on Nip/Tuck, just like Michael on Burn Notice, just like Sylar on Heroes, just like Dean in Supernatural, just like Chuck in Gossip Girl: I'm a sucker who just wants these dumb*sses to be happy!  Please, you jerks, please just BE HAPPY!

But I have to admit that watching them be categorically UNHAPPY makes for good TV :)

turning my brain into bubbling brain fondue

Ok, I love Burn Notice.

Here's why:

- they tell you how to do cool things.  In every act, the main character (in V.O.) explains how to do something like, create a huge magnet/cell phone blocker, blow something up, knock a person out with allergy medication, etc, while a character demonstrates on-screen.  SO COOL.

-Michael (the main character) and his mother have a really sweet relationship, which I love, because I love his mother.  She wears cute old-lady outfits, like bright red T-shirts.  And, she was the Teddy Bear saleslady/psycho killer/Sean's faux agent/Sean's vrai stalker on Nip/Tuck last year (!!!).  AND, she (her character) SMOKES.

Yeah, yeah, booooo smoking.  I don't even expect to see smoking on T.V. anymore!  And if someone does smoke on T.V., they are a) evil, b) clearly not enjoying it.  They always have this shriveled facial expression and a weird way of puffing... ANYWAY.  But Michael's mom is just a regular smoker.  Like mine!

And yeah, I sound like I'm four, but jeez, it's nice to have people on T.V. seem like real people.  ie, characters that live in normal houses.  And eat stoffer's.  And bum rides to things.  And have cars that are ok but that break sometimes.  And smoke cigarettes for the pleasure of it.  And tape up a chair when it gets a hole in it, because they like the chair and really, why get a new one?  And hang around their ex-s and not have it be super duper awkward (because face it, who do you know better than an ex?  why would that be super duper awkward?  unless you're ashamed of something.  in which case: lose the conscience already, would you?) And not have everything be super clean.  And wear comfortable clothes when they're just hanging out.  And use each other, but in the normal friend/family way, not scary ABUSE way (though, lamely, on Burn Notice there is some random ABUSE blah blah blah, but I pretend it's not there because otherwise I like the show so much).

I knew I absolutely loved the show when I was watching it yesterday and in a one-minute scene, Michael's mom fixes her car, psycho-babbles about her husband, smokes a cigarette, puts a stoffer's lasagne in the oven for dinner, and guilt-trips Michael into staying for the meal.  AHHHH. See, THAT is comfort viewing.  And I bet they're having entimen's for dessert.  Or maybe ice cream.  

- Like all the other USA shows, the villains aren't EVIL and the heroes aren't all that heroic.  In fact, everybody is pretty ordinary, albeit most of the heroes have at least one random, extraordinary skill and most of the villains are losers.  (Michael's skill is that he's essentially  very cool-headed and in-the-know.  Sean from Psych and Monk from Monk are both really observant).  I guess USA has cornered the market on totally-normal-except-super-resourceful heroes.  

And, while the villains do bad things- they kill people and rob people and are generally not nice- they're only ORDINARY bad, not Law & Order bad.  DAMN sure not Law & Order: SVU bad!  Or Law & Order: Criminal Intent irrational.  But then, Criminal Intent's criminals are the most self destructive ever, and their motives are always so abstract, and their plans are always so roundabout... but I digress.

I like how USA constructs its detective shows in general, and I like how they construct Burn Notice in particular because- well, let's face it, I'm an all-action girl, and that show's the one with the most action.  And I think Burn Notice does a very good job of balancing the Monster of the Week episode-length-arc with the character development.  

BUT, I do wish they'd improve one thing (ok, two- drop the abuse thing, too): transitions.  They're always really awkward and weirdly long.  Sometimes we just get a little too much time "hanging" silently with the actors after a scene, while they walk to the next place, etc, and sometimes we get weird jump-cuts, and sometimes we get these weird establishing shots of random (RANDOM) things (ie, we'll be going from a parking lot to a house, and we'll get a long, distorted shot of the ocean for our transition.  Why?  I dunno.)  It's not that the show doesn't have strong act-outs (in theory), because it does- I think it's just the editing.  But jeez, it cheapens the whole thing and makes it feel so awkward, and kind of pulls the act-out punch.... and guys, seriously, all you need is to cut away faster.  It's not that the scenes themselves are awkward or out of place.

OR: Angel's transitions always seemed cool to me- they were a bunch of shots that flicked by REALLY fast to kind of creepy sound effects.  Usually the shots would just be various locations, etc, but a lot of the time they were out-takes from or alternative versions of the scene we'd just watched- and that was REALLY cool/creepy.  Like, if a scene had been really heavy, we'd see a super-fast glimpse of the same characters, but playing it happier.  Or, if the scene was super light, we'd maybe get a shot of the same characters, but angry or surprised, etc.  It gave everything a kind of spooky edge. 

ALSO:

As long as I'm going on and on and on about television: Nip/Tuck has been ROCKING.  Last week (2/10), the show had all these strange in-joke feeling moments.  Two that stood out were: when the soap-actor wants to sit in on surgery, only to have a fight with Sean and storm out, while wrestling with his clothes and screaming, "they don't fit!," and when Christian is killed in the script and the soap-actor explains, "I didn't know what to do with his character."

(Which made me very sad, because I think the writers have been doing a FABULOUS job with Christian this season.  SERIOUSLY.  This is as good or better as that time you led up to the has-unrequited-love-for-Sean thing.  Which- cruelly- you never developed... but I digress).

And honestly, I found this past week's episode very touching.  It's strange: when I started watching, I mostly wanted to see Christian get it on, and whatever the hell Matt's CRAZY storyline was.  And for a while over the past couple seasons, since Christian hasn't been getting it on and Matt's storylines have gotten more "realistic," I've felt that the show was seriously slipping.  But this season- Matt's just being responsible and boring!  Julia's gone (yay!)!  Christian's been so introverted!  And it works!  Wow.  

Now, I mostly watch hoping people will be nice to Christian and Sean will get knocked down a peg, and Kimber will show up (because I freaking love Kimber).  

This is the formula I think they need to keep:

Be cruel to Christian.

Shock Sean.

Matt's storylines should be as outlandish as possible.

Kimber should *always* be around.  

And Julia *never* should.

Also, I like Liz pretty well, but I'm not super attached to her yet.  How could they fix that?

How could they make Liz into a *real* character, too?

ALSO:

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is a boring show.  They talk about action a lot, but they don't have enough of it.  And Sarah is *SO* arrogant.  Every time she speaks I want to roll my eyes.  And for God's sake, John, if THAT is your mother, and you have decided to be with her ALL the time, you've made the bed of perpetual single-hood/unhappy girlfriend-hood, and you'll just have to lie in it.  Forever.  THINK about that and repent.  NOW.

But Dollhouse is pretty good.  The stories feel a little bleh to me (last week was an abused child confronting her abuser.  this week was, an abused child has become an abuser and Echo faces him when he tries to abuse her.  can't we just have a heist, or any plot with a *sane* motive?  anything besides psychos?  and crappy childhoods?), 

and some of the acting seems over the top (memo to guy who changes the "dolls'" memories: CALM DOWN.  you make me tense.  you are what they call a "blower."  STOP.) although the guy who plays Echo's mentor is good and the guy who played the psycho tonight was good, too (meaning likable- I don't know shit about acting).  When I look at Echo, I just see Faith, etc, so I can't even really judge. 

But what makes the show good for me: the action.  GREAT fight scenes.  They feel scary, but they're also beautiful.  And well-spaced within the show.  Tension is really good.  I'm not a deep person: those are the things I enjoy :)

What I like: 

Burn Notice: SMOKING.  Nip/Tuck: CANCER.  Dollhouse: FIGHT SCENES.  Jeez, who am I?

Other Pro/Cons:

Burn Notice: 

Pros:  Tone.  Character v. Action balance.  Internal logic- no cheating.  Psycho teddy bear lady.

Cons:  Clumsy transitions.  Clumsy sentimentality (ie, sad father/brave daughter, abuse backstory)

Nip/Tuck:

Pros:  Beautiful, as always.  Total (writer) knowledge of the characters.  Fun, self-mocking (I LOVE that they always say things like: where's my NONFAT yogurt?).

Cons:  No layered story-lines (lately it's been the Christian show).  Cheap tricks/Obvious gimmicks- they're boring (who thought Sean was going to be crippled forever?  or that Teddy would stay?  Or that the little Indian kid would?  or that Matt could hold a storyline about becoming a dr.?  Or that there wouldn't be ENDLESS gender confusion/incest?  And I don't need to see someone changing Sean's diapers to be annoyed with how infantile he is.  I'm annoyed by that every second he's on-screen).

Dollhouse (not really fair because there have only been two episodes, but...):

Pros: Great fighting.  Great pacing.  Cool set.  

Cons:  Can be too "meta." (ie, the super self-aware, super scenery-chewing memory-guy).  Too much blah backstory taking the forefront (last week's ep rested on the "imprint" skill-person's backstory being really destructive, and this week's rested on a psycho-killer threat coming back to haunt the characters.... yawn.)  

FYI:  PSYCHO KILLERS ARE BORING.

Know what's interesting?  THE UNPREDICTABLE.  And evil is very, very, very predictable.  SO PLEASE STOP BORING EVERYONE WITH IT.

The sad thing is:  I'm sure Joss Whedon knows that, and I'm sure the other writers on his staff know that.  So whoever is stuffing his show with BORING SHIT, please stop.  ECHO IS TOTALLY AMORAL- THAT'S WHAT'S COOL ABOUT HER!  So please stop shitting all over the premise of the show by having Echo be a super-cop taking down the baddies.

Ok, now that I've gone on and on and on (and haven't even touched Lost and my newfound love for Ben, or Gossip Girl and how I love all the drippy melodrama, or Supernatural and how it is SO OBVIOUSLY a show about men but made for teenage girls- and me.  I promise not to ever speak of Heroes again, though.  I mean: they get rid of all the women, team up all the dorks, and CLAIR, WHEN YOU GET A REAL PROBLEM CALL ME BECAUSE BEING BEAUTIFUL, IMMORTAL, AND LOVINGLY/SHREWDLY CARED FOR BY YOUR GUARDIAN ANGEL/FATHER IS NOT A PROBLEM) so I'd better sign off and come back to those shows later.  

Mr. (Re-) Right

Dean Wesley Smith (author of more than ninety novels, including both original Men in Black books) loves these rules: 

Heinlein's Rules

1.  You must write.

2.  You must finnish what you write.

3.  You must not rewrite unless to editorial demand.

4.  You must mail your story to an editor who will pay you money.

5.  You must keep it in the mail until someone buys it.

On his blog (go read it!), he writes that these rules scare most beginning writers, because they challenge a bunch of self-destructive writing myths.  

Such as: rewriting makes a book better.  

Yeah, I have the most trouble with number three.  1.  Because I write in a scatter-shot, non-chronological way, and I (think I) need to go back over my stories to get them to fit together.  2.  because I don't self-edit AT ALL while or right after I write.  I just try and type everything down as fast as I can.  And I can't believe that the first, random way something comes out on the page is the best I can do.

But apparently that's a rule A LOT of beginners have trouble following, so he gave a few examples of people liking the fresh, thoughtless pieces people knocked off better than the ones they'd made into precious pieces of art.  

And I thought about my own most successful pieces- meaning, the pieces people liked the best.  And actually, most of them WERE things I just scribbled down and got in.  Not just poems or short stories; the essays I got A+s on in college were generally the ones I'd only spent a night on, blasting away.

So screw editing for now.  I'm going on.  And after yesterday's recharge time, I've got a fabulous outline for the thriller, so it'll be that much easier :)

I can't promise that after this draft I'll put the story in the mail... like I said, I haven't been writing chronologically, so there are a lot of expos. things I'll need to clean up, plus things like spelling/grammar mistakes, consistency in how the various characters talk, and changing vocab. a little so I won't repeat the same word OVER and OVER and OVER.

But maybe I shouldn't fret so much, and should trust my instincts more.  Maybe this stuff is easier than I thought :)

if the pirates of the caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists

I was reading Jurassic Park today, for notes on structure, and on how to plug in scientific information with style.  The book really does chug right along, with hook after hook after hook and no good place to stop reading.  And because my story isn't exactly like it, and Jurassic Park works so well, I had a anxiety fit and haven't written yet today.  

My story doesn't have DINOSAURS, or AMUSEMENT PARKS, or GLAMOROUS RICH PEOPLE, or CUTE CHILDREN or tons and tons of HIGHLY REGARDED EXPERTS, and my characters aren't stuck in a TROPICAL PARADISE!

Every scene in Jurassic Park relates DIRECTLY, OBVIOUSLY to the central hook (that dinosaurs are back).  In theory, I knew every scene was supposed to do that... but I didn't realize HOW directly they could/should relate.  I've got groundwork for subplots getting laid in, I've got people with agendas that will LATER have to do with the central conceit of the story, but don't seem to at the moment... I've got scenes where the focus isn't obviously on the BIG SCARY conceit.

Guess I've got to change that.

It's helpful reading a book that works in a way that I want my book to work... but it's scary, too. 

Because I don't know if I can make my book as good.  And even if I do my very best to make it entertaining and smooth and interesting, but the hook just isn't hook-y enough or the whole thing is just too lite?  Too "trashy"?  Too strange?

What if, after working as hard as I possibly can, for no money and less respect, I end up with a piece of crap story that nobody wants to read?

God, who thought Jurassic Park was ever going to give ANYBODY this much existential angst? 

a zombie is a zombie is a zombie

If you write a whole book about zombies, but never use the words zombie, is it still a zombie book?  Or is it just a book about a lot people who get sick and want to eat brains?

Is it a (techno/bio)thriller or a horror story?

I guess the point of that is: I know people are getting sick of vampires... which means they're going to be feeling a little blah about werewolves and zombies and demon possession, too, I'd bet.  

So, does that mean they're going to be feeling blah about little old werewolf and zombie and demon possession-obsessed little old me?

In other news, I'm reading Shirley Jackson's The House on Haunted Hill.  It's REALLY fantastic.  Simple, but dreadful- and impossible to put down.

How does she hook you so hard with a story where nothing really happens?

I read that tension comes from people being forced to make moral choices.  Her characters must be making choices ALL the damn time, then, because this book has PHENOMENAL tension.  Well, I guess they are.  They constantly have to choose to stay in the creepiest house in the world, they constantly have to choose how they present themselves to each-other (hiding and showing fear is a *big deal* to these characters) and they constantly have to decide who to trust and how much.

This is the kind of book I read and wish to GOD I'd written.  Does reading a book like that make you feel good (because it's so beautiful) or bad (because you didn't write it)?  Now that I'm getting better, it makes me feel good- I don't line-edit the damn thing the whole time I'm reading, I just enjoy it and learn from it where I can.

Want. Take. Have. (Pretty, pretty please?)

YA books haven't held up for me.  I LOOOOVED them when I was a kid, and remember many of them- or at least, how they made me feel- vividly.  But reading them as an adult.... they're kind of "eh."  And I'm talking all kinds of books, because I was a HUUUUUGE reader as a kid (no surprise, huh?)- Newberry Prize winners and Harry Potter types and the Sebastian Barth mysteries and Avi.  

The YAs I've been reading are just as subtle and well-written as adult books... but they don't delve into things as deeply; they aren't (usually?) as complex emotionally or structurally.  (BTW, what do YA writers think about this?  Do you agree?)

I'm all for basic, simple structure- I'm a minimalist, and my over-riding goal is always clarity.  But YA books just aren't as emotionally satisfying to me now as they used to be.

So, since I couldn't quite sink my teeth into YA books- even ones I loved as a kid- I tried re-watching my old Buffy DVDs.  

I was OBSESSED with Buffy as a teenager.  OBSESSSSSSSED.  Like, up to six in the morning in chat groups obsessed.  And dorky.  Obviously.

Anyway, the shows hold up.  Even things that annoyed me when I watched them as a teenager- Willow's weird hats, her timidness, the way the "kids" had great bodies and great hair and super cool clothes (compared to me and my lameness, anyway), how they always took tests really seriously even though real teenagers have some kind of test every other day- those things don't seem that big of a deal now.  

And now, I can really appreciate things like: how well constructed all the episodes are.  They have a powerful meta-story, while being satisfying in their own right.  And they're like potato chips- once you see the first act of an episode, it's hard not to watch the next.  And once you see an episode, there are so many questions that you just *have* to watch the one after.  Even the *SEASONS* are like that- I ended up ordering Season 6 because I just couldn't take not having it anymore.  

I like Buffy just as much now as I did when I was fifteen or sixteen- maybe more.  I would think I love it- campy monsters, out of date pop references and all- because I'm a beautiful and unique snowflake and my tastes are exceptional- except that they're not.  

Actually, I'm one of the grey masses everyone's always talking (snobbishly) about lately.  PLENTY of people love Buffy- plenty of people love it even more than I do.  They go to musicals and suffer through Serenity (which, to me, is like Buffy but boring, with lamer fighting, and ugly clothes) for Joss's sake.

And just because Buffy was (ostensibly) the equivalent of a throw-away action show like Heroes or Knight Rider- only made for kids, on a network-let micro-budget, with lower ratings and a final cancellation  six years ago- doesn't mean people are going to stop referring to it, buying the DVDs, introducing it to their friends, worshipping anything Joss Whedon touches, and generally loving the show to pieces.  

Why does this show seem at least as good as ever, while the books don't?  What does it have that they are missing?

The Wind Beneath My...ahem....Wings

Nip/Tuck is the best show on Earth.

FINALLY, they are A+ on track with their characters:

Christian is constantly getting dumped on, but is stoic about it.

Sean is an infantile lame-ass.

Julia's MIA.

Liz is grounded and loyal.

And we've got the fun stuff: Christian's missing breast!  Sean's fake paralysis!  A thieving hooker from Craigslist!  Who beats up a cancer patient!  A bad-hair and neckerchief wearing duo!  With gender confusion! (Nip/Tuck's bread and butter).

Now they only have to introduce the most over-the-top storyline in the world for Matt (any suggestions?), and throw Christian and Kimber together for some sparks, and they'll have the best show ever created.  

And yes, I include Buffy and Angel in that.  :)

Side Note: WHY is this the end of the fifth season?  It feels like a new season, and the first two-thirds of season 5 aired a year ago.  Does anyone know the technical reason for this?  I'm sure it's something boring and financial, but I also know they have an end-date set up for Nip/Tuck and I'm wondering if the "Season 5" label is an attempt to get around that.  Can only hope, anyway- this show seems to have found a second wind.  

this hurts me more than its gonna hurt you

Have you ever seen ten Kevin Costner movies in a row? (I have.  Please don't ask.)  He plays a specific type of character well, so he plays that character in every movie he's in.  There's nothing wrong with that; the commodity he's selling isn't his acting, it's his persona.  

His job isn't "actor" it's "movie star," regardless of how much (or how little) money he makes.  (Wayne Brady's commodity is his persona, too.  That's why his skits on the Chappelle Show were so funny.)

Actors, on the other hand, would lose their audience if they played the same role again and again.  The joy of watching an "actor" comes from watching a bizarre, desperate, scary, or otherwise strange character become someone you understand and care about.  It's like the actor has done a magic trick, by making the unknown knowable.  

My "Star or Actor?" Test is: would the audience be happy to see the performer in a role disparate from the ones he's already played?  

Actors: Neil Patrick Harris, Mark Wahlberg, James McAvoy

Stars: Tom Cruise, Edward Norton*, Ben Stiller

*Edward Norton is marketed as an "artiste" but actually plays the same role repeatedly, in pretty much the same way.

This has nothing to do with a performer's "star power" or "acting ability," but rather the tools they rely on to please the audience.  To me, a star uses his charisma, the sense that he's someone the audience knows and likes, or at least likes to watch.  An actor uses his insight, to give us a glimpse into someone we couldn't otherwise understand.

Sometimes it isn't even up to the performer as to whether they're an "actor" or a "star": I think Anne Hathoway and Angelina Jolie have attempted or would like to be actresses, but audiences like their personas so much that they would betray those audiences by taking non-persona roles.  And everyone makes fun of Mark Wahlberg's acting, but whether he has the chops or not, it's great to see his "take" on strange characters.  People (including me!) go to see his movies because we know we'll meet a great character there.

Then there are the performers that everyone knows are either great stars or great actors: for instance, Leonardo DiCaprio's commodity is his acting.  So it's not a shock to see him as a young, suburban windbag.  Instead, it's a joy to see him take on the character of Frank, in Revolutionary Road, and turn the dull SOB into someone special and worth caring about.

My personal favorite scene: the morning after a horrific fight, Frank and his wife April have breakfast together.  April is unusually kind to and accepting of Frank.  Frank doesn't quite know how to take it, but he's overjoyed to be "friends" with his wife again.  Watching Frank test the waters of April's friendship is heartbreaking and sweet, mostly because DiCaprio's performance is heartbreaking and sweet.

The great thing about knowing a performer is an "actor" rather than a star, is that when you go to see one of his movies, you're prepared to go through the wringer and to enjoy the process.  As you all probably know: don't go to Revolutionary Road for a fun night with Leo, go to fall into a new and perhaps terrible world filled with strange people.  Seriously, though- go.

I Can See Clearly Now, the Rain Has Gone...

Why have I never read George Pelecanos before?

Started Hell to Pay last night, and am already done.  Apparently, it's not one of his most popular or critically acclaimed books, but it's still a New York Times Notable Book... and I sure think it's fantastic.

It's got fleshed out characters, a fascinating, vivid setting, and a great pace.  He's a master, and reading his work is an education for a newbie thriller writer like me :)

Thank God he's got a few zillion more books, and they're all available at the local (D.C.) library.