GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Adam Baldwin cast in new FOX drama

POSTED BY: STARPILOTGRAINGER
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 15:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4776
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:16 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER


Man, he's just a sucker for punishment, huh? ;)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_i
d=1000742436


There's a mention of Firefly and Serenity in the article too, although the show itself sounds non-SF.

Hope it succeeds just enough that it's good for Adam, but not enough that it interferes with future Firefly stuff. ;)

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6
http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:21 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


"Baldwin will play a tough, seasoned FBI agent, a man's man with 25 years on the job."
What, he get his start when he was 10??!
Best of luck for a successful show for one cool dude.

That guy, working electric, he never drank with us!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:34 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"Baldwin will play a tough, seasoned FBI agent, a man's man with 25 years on the job."
What, he get his start when he was 10??!



Actually Adam is 44. If they do some makeup and put some grey in his hair he could pass for mid 50s.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Meet Up:
http://firefly.meetup.com/9/boards/


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 5:13 AM

BRITCHICK


I'll have to give in and watch Fox then, just so I can drooool over Adam. Adam Baldwin mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
*stares dreamily into space*

Like fireflyfans.net?
Help keep the site running.. Why not donate?
see links on homepage

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:54 AM

TLACOOK


This is Tim Minear's new show. *does happy dance*

Tim also brought in Jane Espenson to help him run it.

*does another happy dance*

hee hee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:00 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER


Quote:

Originally posted by tlacook:
This is Tim Minear's new show. *does happy dance*

Tim also brought in Jane Espenson to help him run it.

*does another happy dance*

hee hee



Tim Minear? Wow... he's even _more_ of a sucker for punishment then... he's had _two_ Fox shows cancelled out from under him, hasn't he? :)

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6
http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions
Today on The Unreachable Star: 2004 Year In Review (Firefly wins best DVD!)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:14 AM

TLACOOK


Somehow he still keeps getting paid...

I could be wrong but, I think Tim is under contract to 20th Century Fox Studios. So they pay him whether he is working or not.

This was a show created by someone else that the studio disliked when they saw the pilot. They asked Tim to come in and fix it.

He completely gutted the show keeping only the lead actress. He completely rewrote the concept of the show. It was basically 21 Jumpstreet meets 2005. It is now The Profiler meets Silence of the Lambs. And then he also brought in Jane.

Tim is also working on his screenplay of "The Moon is a harsh Mistress" and a pilot for ABC.

He is a busy boy and I hope after Firefly and Wonderfalls he has learned to not get too attached.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:15 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER


I look forward to seeing what he does with TMiaHM

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6
http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions
Today on TUS: 2004 Year-In-Review

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:11 AM

XENOCIDE


Quote:

Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:
I look forward to seeing what he does with TMiaHM

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6
http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions
Today on TUS: 2004 Year-In-Review



Man could you ever earn a lot of hate if you screwed that up!

Not that I think he will, but talk about fondling a sacred cow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:12 AM

TLACOOK


I am nervously awaiting what he does with Moon. I am not a fan of the book. I know it is a very important scifi book and way ahead of its time (yada yada yada) but, I found it impossibly sexist and dated.

I got about half way through and gave up in disgust.

I think a lot of women who grew up reading women science fiction and fantasy authors with realistic female characters have issues with Moon's little sex fiends.

Just an opinion.

I so hope Tim makes it palatable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:41 AM

DEBBIEBUK


Quote:

Originally posted by tlacook:
I am nervously awaiting what he does with Moon. I am not a fan of the book. I know it is a very important scifi book and way ahead of its time (yada yada yada) but, I found it impossibly sexist and dated.

I got about half way through and gave up in disgust.

I think a lot of women who grew up reading women science fiction and fantasy authors with realistic female characters have issues with Moon's little sex fiends.

Just an opinion.

I so hope Tim makes it palatable.



I really loved Heinlein's books when I was a little girl (well okay 12-15 ish maybe not so little) but can't read them now, it's the elitism as much as the sexual stereotyping I can't handle.

Debbie

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:38 PM

HJERMSTED


I love Heinlein.

I just look at him as the drunken grandfather I never had who spins fascinating yarns at family gatherings and deliberately causes trouble with the youngsters in attendance by adhering to the lingo and attitudes of his own era. Though he only died in 1988, it might help to look on Heinlein as you look on Mark Twain. In that sense Heinlein becomes a valuable antique... a true product of his times, letting it all hang out. But he was also way ahead of his times (particularly on the subject of theocratic pseudo-democracies... Heinlein practically predicted Fox News if you think about it).

Heinlein himself is probably somewhere being thankful he didn't live long enough to experience the political correctness of the 90s and its aftermath. I wish he did, however, for I am curious what kinds of things he would have to say about the PC movement. I'm certain it'd be quite entertaining.

mattro

PS: I am also eagerly awaiting the adaptation of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. But when is someone going to adapt Stranger in a Strange Land?! Last I heard Tom Hanks owned the rights... which frightens me a little.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:53 PM

TLACOOK


For some reason it is easier to accept antique views and behaviors when the story takes place in the past rather than taking place in the future. It makes me very uncomfortable and as a woman who read science fiction growing up to see my possible future...

Anyway, let's just say I like Andre Norton's view of the future better that Heinlein's.

And I always find it interesting when someone talks about political correctness as if it is a "new" thing or a negative thing.

Political correctness is always present in every era within every political structure. It is simply the peer pressure enforcement of the en vogue moral code.

It existed in 1940 as much as it exists today.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:25 PM

ZOID


tlacook wrote:
Quote:

...And I always find it interesting when someone talks about political correctness as if it is a "new" thing or a negative thing...

It is both 'new' and negative. It is thought policing and Orwellian mind crimes. Not only can one person not tell another what they think of them, they'd better not even think it, lest it show on their faces and offend someone -- anyone -- standing within viewing range. In the 40's and 50's and so on until the 90's, unrestrained free speech might get you shunned at church or avoided at the water cooler at work; now it gets you fired, sued and/or jailed for anything that remotely resembles impropriety (unless of course your last name is Clinton or Kennedy, in which case it's whiskey and cigars for the whole staff!).

Enforced repression of emotional responses, regardless how inane the reasons for the reaction, only forces fear and misunderstanding below the surface, where they fester into hate and violence.

I say no one has a right to stand on a pedestal and claim unimpeachability, based on an external difference in physical form. If something is wrong, if I sense bullsh*t, if the Emperor is naked, I'm gonna say so, with a lot of undeleted expletives. And PC be damned, along with those who worship that steaming pile...


Uncorrectly,

Tyler 'zoid' Durden

P.S.
And remember, if this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.

P.P.S.
Ummm... I really liked Heinlein a lot. I think his stereotyping of women was done with only the best intentions at heart. If he came across as a chauvinist pig, it was only because his male characters were chauvinist pigs, by design. Maybe RAH was too. Still, he's dead now, so I guess you can go ahead and take your shots at him. Seems fair, I suppose... But his female characters were way smarter than Paris Hilton or the entire cast of "Girls Gone Wild", Episodes 1 thru 3652. Hmmm, maybe you're right. Maybe Heinlein did get it all wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:44 PM

TLACOOK


What you see now has always existed in one form or another. There is nothing new here.



Ah. I know your type. We have plenty just like you over on the OB (Adam Baldwin is of your ilk).

You like to argue, don't you?

Hee hee

very cute.

I can tell from your post that absolutely nothing I could possibly say would dent the very firm opinions you have already decided are without reproach so, I have plenty of other brick walls to bang my head against.

LOL

I saw the bait, and I am not taking it.

Look, people. I think I have grown.


BTW: Yay Tim! Yay Adam! and Yay for all the free publicity for Serenity!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:52 PM

MALICIOUS


TLACook!

Zoid HATES it when you don't take the bait! Take it, take it already! That way, he'll stop trying to bait ME.

Mal-licious

Co-Holder of the Red Bell from Hell

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:56 PM

ZOID


tlacook:

Good on ya'...


Respectfully,

zoid

EDITED P.S.,
I predict that someone is formulating a harsh rebuttal as I type this, and that someone else is formulating an equally harsh affirmation. Wait for it...

_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:07 PM

ZOID


'Lish:

Why, what ever do you mean, "bait" you?! *dips Mal's pigtails in inkwell*

Love your new hair color, btw: brown with indigo tips...


Adolescently Yours,

-zed

P.S.
Hope you got everything you wanted for Christmas. I was going to say something else, but you know how people like to talk. Did anybody happen to notice exactly when the expression 'toys and batteries' became too suggestive to even consider saying, when talking about Christmas gifts? I mean, we're all looking for batteries on Christmas morning, trying to find an open 7-11 or something; but, you can't wish somebody Christmas batteries without piquing someone's prurient interests, can you? Sheesh! Well, I hope you got batteries to go with your toys, anyway.
-zed

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:15 PM

REEQUEEN


I read a lot of Heinlein's books for boys ('cause even Podkayne of Mars was really for boys), and all the other boys' adventure story-type sci-fi before I hit puberty. I had no idea of even thinking about the inherent misogyny.

When I started really thinking about stuff (which would've begun in my early twenties, with more thought going into the thinking in subsequent years), and then read all the Heinlein I used to enjoy, plus stuff I hadn't known about (I don't know how I didn't know, but I did have a very....intellectually stimulating yet somehow over-protected childhood), I really got creeped out by his apparent fascination with incest. Ew.

Not that I'm saying Heinlein had an incestuous bone in his body, just that his inclusion of it really rubbed against my grain. And though I call myself a humanist rather than a feminist (it's about inclusion, for me), I used to get very angry at Heinlein's retro-feminist portrayals - "Oh, she's a fine woman and a mighty warrior, but what she really needs is a good schtup! With her dad!" (I paraphrase, of course.) Then I just stopped reading him because of the resulting ranting that inevitably ensues. Only got a few chapters into Number of the Beast, but I really enjoyed the Lazarus Long sagas, right up until Long's (cloned) daughters expressed a desire for ole Lazarus.

I'd love to see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, because I do think there is value in Heinlein's basic stories. It's all the stuff he added to his plots that wig me out (and I still like the boys' adventure stories). I think Stranger in a Strange Land could be a great film as well, with some obvious (to me) changes.

The world isn't like what Heinlein thought he saw coming, and it won't be like he tried to predict. Thank Whomever. But that can be said of many authors, including William Gibson, who I worship as a demigod.




"Today we get to meet the real you." Niska - War Stories

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:25 PM

TLACOOK


Why do you consistently say what I think in a more graceful manner than I could ever dream of doing?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:26 AM

ZOID



ReeQueen:

Good points. But I don't know about "misogyny". 'Woman hater' is a bit strong, don't you think? 'Woman misunderstander', I'll buy, though. Having said that, it's perhaps the hardest thing for a writer to do, creating a believable character of the opposite sex. Who really knows how or what the opposite sex thinks? Only an utter fool would claim such.

"Dune", by Herbert -- one of my favorite books -- comes (maybe?) the closest to getting its females right, even though it's written by a male. At least, many females seem to enjoy Chani, Lady Jessica, et al, without finding them offensive.

Regarding the familial intrabreeding aspects of Heinlein's work, yeah, you're right: It's more than a bit unsettling, especially since he seems to be trying so hard to sell the idea (testing before impregnation to see what the possibility of monstrous mutation is, etc.). On the other hand, Dune's Bene Gesserit sisterhood do the same thing, all the time, in order to produce the Kwisatz Haderach, and one very rarely finds anyone saying "Ew" -- let alone 'Boo' -- about it. On the second hand, the Essenes did the same thing with the line of David. On the third hand, during the days when most of Europe was ruled by monarchies, there was so much intrabreeding of royal bloodlines that hemophilia became a real problem for the Romanovs, idiocy the scourge of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (up to and including Prince Charles?). Getting new blood into the British lineage was one of the goals of marrying princes to commoners in this generation. So, I guess I'm saying, 'Icky, but not necessarily unheard of in human cultures'.

Meanwhile back on the topic of writers creating believable opposite sex characters, my favorite female authors have similar troubles writing male characters. C.J. Cherryh (a fellow Texican, I believe) and C.S. Friedman both write great stories, but their male characters are distinctly women with facial hair and 'butched up' somewhat. Their characters don't think like men, and while they occasionally act like men, they do so at the wrong times and in the wrong ways.

Please don't get defensive about this. I already said neither sex has got any clue about the motivations of the other, and that it's a hard job to make them believable. Cherryh's got the 'biggest pair' in this regard, making a male lead for her long series of "Foreigner" books, which I found to be completely enjoyable reads. Sheri S. Tepper is another female author I enjoy, because of her unapologetically feminine slant. I at least like to fantasize that I know more about how women think, that I can see the world through their filters somewhat, as a result of reading these great female auteures.

In closing, I never enjoyed Heinlein's earliest works, because all of the characters were cardboard cutouts. But this was due to the lurid nature of dime-novel sci-fi of the era, as much as anything else. I did really enjoy everything from "Time Enough For Love" (which a female gave to me with great praise, oddly enough) onward thru "To Sail Beyond Sunset". I believe -- given Tim Minear's body of work -- that the movie version of TMiaHM will have more well-rounded, believable and 'less-hated' female characters than Heinlein's original.


Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
The only thing I cannot abide is a closed mind. Got to kick in the doors and wreck the furnishings...
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:01 AM

HJERMSTED


Quote:

Originally posted by tlacook:
And I always find it interesting when someone talks about political correctness as if it is a "new" thing or a negative thing.

Political correctness is always present in every era within every political structure. It is simply the peer pressure enforcement of the en vogue moral code.

It existed in 1940 as much as it exists today.




Personally, I don't equate the political correctness of the 90s with the social mores of previous eras. In the 40s, I doubt any one citizen jumped down the throat of another for referring to Franklin Delano Roosevelt as "handicapped" rather than "handi-capable".

I agree that social mores have always been -- and will always be -- around and will assert themselves in various ways (some beneficial, some annoying). Social mores differ from place to place, of course, and are never static. The mores of people in NYC are not necessarily the mores of people in, well, Texas (more conservative) or Amsterdam (more liberal **). Social mores, in my mind at least, seem to pertain to behavior.

My beef with the PC thing that happened in the 90s was with its attempt to control language itself. It seemed to me that people became more interested in HOW a person said something than they were in WHAT a person was saying. Censorship via a false sense of language-based superiority.

It's possible that "PC" at first stood for "plain courtesy"... an institutionalized version of "think before you speak" when discussing sensitive subjects such as race or gender. But by the time PC became widely identified to mean "political correctness" it had morphed into "don't speak if you don't think (like us)" which is a harmful attitude for any freedom loving person to carry.

I'm saying all this as a Greener (a graduate of The Evergreen State College in Oly, WA... one of the most liberal colleges in the U.S.) and a fire-in-the-belly progressive.

I was a proponent of PC ideals throughout the 90s. However, I finally came to the conclusion that oppression = oppression whether it comes from the right or left side of the political spectrum... whether subtle or extreme. Also (and this is venturing into the realm of psychology), I feel people who are offended by words that weren't intended as hostile or hurtful need to take responsibility for their own sensitivity levels and cease equating personal offense with wounded victimhood.

Not than anyone on this list is like that... but I'm tirading here.

Okay.

Done tirading.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah... Adam Baldwin's new show on Fox. I have to say I'm for it!

mattro



(**Through an American's eyes... though I've chatted with Dutch folk who insist they are being conservative and pragmatic by regulating certain human vices rather than forcing them to the black market where things get out of control and a disproportional amount of fiscal euros get drained by prisons and the incarceration process)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:37 AM

REEQUEEN


Originally posted by tlacook:
Quote:

Why do you consistently say what I think in a more graceful manner than I could ever dream of doing?


I am your evil twin. Spontaneously generated out of the common angst. Or something. No, really....I believe it's just that you're here while I'm there, and then you're there while I'm here. It balances out, I think.

....on another note, I will get to your post, Zoid, in a little bit. I don't want to serial post, and I want to go over my reply. Laters....

"Today we get to meet the real you." Niska - War Stories

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:38 AM

REEQUEEN


So, fine, I'm going to serial post anyway.

Originally posted by zoid:
Quote:

But I don't know about "misogyny". 'Woman hater' is a bit strong, don't you think? 'Woman misunderstander', I'll buy, though.


You could be right, but I tend to use "misogyny" more as shorthand for "woman misunderstander/don't-know-her/can't-imagine-her," so as you can see it is easier for me to use a word that connotates such, even if it doesn't align completely with the strictest dictionary definition. Although, even without trying to psychoanalyze Heinlein via his works, such a comprehensive misunderstanding might, indeed, reckon a little towards dislike of the feminine gender.

Quote:

"Dune", by Herbert -- one of my favorite books -- comes (maybe?) the closest to getting its females right, even though it's written by a male. At least, many females seem to enjoy Chani, Lady Jessica, et al, without finding them offensive.


I enjoyed Frank Herbert for a while, then I got tired of him. Messianic literature, movies, stuff, tends to bore me irretrievably. As for his female characters, I honestly don't remember enough to comment.

Quote:

Regarding the familial intrabreeding aspects of Heinlein's work, yeah, you're right: It's more than a bit unsettling, especially since he seems to be trying so hard to sell the idea (testing before impregnation to see what the possibility of monstrous mutation is, etc.). On the other hand, Dune's Bene Gesserit sisterhood do the same thing, all the time, in order to produce the Kwisatz Haderach, and one very rarely finds anyone saying "Ew" -- let alone 'Boo' -- about it.


I'm saying it now - Ew. I find it unappealing to read about, no matter who's writing about it, and I will judge an author strictly on the inclusion of incest. It's just one of those quirks I have. I think you're assuming, here, that I enjoy Herbert as much as a lot of folks do, and that is not the case.

Quote:

On the second hand, the Essenes did the same thing with the line of David. On the third hand, during the days when most of Europe was ruled by monarchies, there was so much intrabreeding of royal bloodlines that hemophilia became a real problem for the Romanovs, idiocy the scourge of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (up to and including Prince Charles?). Getting new blood into the British lineage was one of the goals of marrying princes to commoners in this generation. So, I guess I'm saying, 'Icky, but not necessarily unheard of in human cultures'.


None of which goes to prove anything against my ick factor, which I do understand may be a personal opinion. In fact, it rather goes towards justifying my feelings in the matter - inbreeding for generations produces genetic mutations that are usually not for the best. First generation inbreeding between siblings (less so parent-child) is not dangerous, in and of itself, because those recessive genes don't tend to show up until they've been reinforced by having nowhere else to go (like they would with exogamy). Breeding between cousins is even less of a risk, unless like the European royal families, you've been doing it since Joseph landed in Britain. Same thing happens when you breed dogs - it is common to breed back into a line, but if a breeder does it too long, they're breeding back to feral, as well as reinforcing genetic flaws that belong to that specific genetic group.

Then there are the psychological factors, which are mutable. I have much less of a problem with a father and daughter, or sister and brother, marrying or "getting it on" if they haven't lived together all their lives, or don't even know each other. And if there is no history of inbreeding, I figure at that point it's none of my business. What I do think is dangerous (psychologically speaking), is mating to people that have familial roles such as dad or brother - it's a trust issue, deeply imbedded in human psyches. Most of us don't want to associate family members with sex, because we have other roles for them. Maybe this will change, if human beings eventually don't need those roles and we decide to raise children in bubbles without those intimate relationships.

What I don't think is likely, is for humans to continue to have these supportive familial roles, and then decide that the genetic risk of incest isn't great enough to continue to prevent consanguinity. Which is the problem I have with Heinlein and several other authors who posit incest as a partial cure for some of our social problems - there's more than just the moral taboo to get over, more involved than the fear of defective babies.

I honestly don't know enough about psychology or genetics to give a better argument, this is just the stuff I've come up with to explain my antipathy for the trope.

Quote:

Meanwhile back on the topic of writers creating believable opposite sex characters, my favorite female authors have similar troubles writing male characters. C.J. Cherryh (a fellow Texican, I believe) and C.S. Friedman both write great stories, but their male characters are distinctly women with facial hair and 'butched up' somewhat. Their characters don't think like men, and while they occasionally act like men, they do so at the wrong times and in the wrong ways.


I've read some Cherryh, but know not of Friedman. I do know that gender identity and writing characters opposite to the author's identity can be problematical. Then again, each author, much like any individual, is going to have strengths and weaknesses. Getting inside the skin of someone "other" is difficult in any sense, trying to think like someone you're not is an act of imagination and empathy. Some authors are good at characterisation, male or female (or a combination thereof), some are good at plot, whatever. I think it has less to do with writing good "male/female" characters, and more to do with characterisation. I find Heinlein's men caricaturish, as well, I just went with the female example because that's what bugs me the most.

Quote:

Please don't get defensive about this. I already said neither sex has got any clue about the motivations of the other, and that it's a hard job to make them believable.


Nah, I don't see anything in your post to feel defensive about. I do think you're mistaken about whether or not one gender can ever understand the motivations of the other, because I consider people to be people, whether or not they're female or male people, and the same motivations apply to both, with only minor variations.

Quote:

In closing, I never enjoyed Heinlein's earliest works, because all of the characters were cardboard cutouts. But this was due to the lurid nature of dime-novel sci-fi of the era, as much as anything else.


The dime-novel sci-fi era is one I enjoy immensely. While I love good characterisation, when I started reading sci-fi, the pulp books were what I had available. So, it's mostly sentiment, and I don't so much read it now, but I do remember it fondly.

Currently, I'm all about the Terry Pratchett books, because I have got to have the humour. I'm not big on fantasy, generally speaking, but Pratchett has created a fully-realized world that I love to visit with somewhat obsessive regularity. And he knows how to write women. Heh.

Quote:

I believe -- given Tim Minear's body of work -- that the movie version of TMiaHM will have more well-rounded, believable and 'less-hated' female characters than Heinlein's original.


I think you're probably correct.

....with apologies for the big, fat, post.



"Today we get to meet the real you." Niska - War Stories

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:04 PM

ZOID


ReeQueen:

Thank you for your honest and well-considered responses. I suspect we've read some of the same heresies ("...Joseph landed in Britain."). I also suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on some of the pivotal arguments. For instance, I believe that the only proper way to begin to empathize with another's circumstances is to start with the assumption that you can never fully comprehend what it feels like to be that other human. You can try to put yourself in their position; but unless you realize from the get-go that it's only going to be faint analogue of that other person's feelings, you run the very real risk of totally misunderstanding (and insulting) them.

I'm fishing around here for the right way to say this, so that I'm properly understood; so forgive me if it seems I'm belaboring the point, but it's important for me to express it... You can 'walk a mile in the other guy's moccasins', but you're never gonna truly know what it's like to live in her/his skin for a lifetime, no matter how hard you try, or how smart you are, or how sensitive your friends tell you you are; and it's vanity to believe otherwise. That vanity can blind and cripple. We must truly accept that the Other is unique, as a fundamental rule of interaction. Otherwise, we dehumanize the Other into a baseline set of behaviors, and an equation that only needs a limited set of variables defined in order to 'empathize' with them.

But as long as we begin with the knowledge that the process of empathy will always be imperfect, and accept that no two humans are alike enough to truly understand one another, we may be able to craft working and loving relationships together.

I'm not particularly pleased with my performance in that explanation; but it'll have to do for now... As an example, though, of the conclusions this personal philosophy has led me to: I don't think men should have any say -- at any level -- regarding women's reproductive issues, at least until men grow ovaries and uteri, then carry for 9 months and birth babies. This is the 'vanity' I was speaking of: How can a man possibly empathize with that experience, let alone an entire life inside that physiology, with different drives and hormonal impulses? So why are men typically the most vehement protesters whenever women decide what to do with their own bodies? How would men feel if females dominated society and decided when, if and where the males were sterilized? I can bloody well tell you...

I, too, apologize for going to such circuitous lengths. But, my point is this: I don't think we're ever going to fully understand one another, especially not with the attitude that we can if we're good enough, smart enough, sensitive enough people to accomplish the task.

Whew! I've been considering a career in dentistry...

C.S. Friedman's a very capable storyteller. My favorites among her very small catalogue are "The Madness Season" and "This Alien Shore". I highly recommend them.

My familiarity with Terry Pratchett begins and ends with his collaboration with Neil Gaiman on "Good Omens". I will take your recommendation, though, and check him out next time I go book shopping (I got a $50 gift cert from B&N for Christmas; my family knows me well enough). I'll pay special attention to his female characters.

Thanks again for an engaging discussion.


Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
Excellent news about AB signing to do TM's new series. I've enjoyed Adam's work for many years, and it'll be good to see some of the old team reunited, trying to make new magic. The bad news is it's gonna be on F*x. If it's any good or -- God forbid -- innovative, it's a goner for sure. Those guys are allergic to 'original'...
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 3:15 PM

REEQUEEN


Hey, Zoid, I love serendipitous conversations. This one is great, so thank you!

Originally posted by zoid:
Quote:

Thank you for your honest and well-considered responses. I suspect we've read some of the same heresies ("...Joseph landed in Britain.").


Heh. I don't know about heresy, but I know a good rumour when I see one, and hopefully how to use it.

Quote:

I also suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on some of the pivotal arguments. For instance, I believe that the only proper way to begin to empathize with another's circumstances is to start with the assumption that you can never fully comprehend what it feels like to be that other human. You can try to put yourself in their position; but unless you realize from the get-go that it's only going to be faint analogue of that other person's feelings, you run the very real risk of totally misunderstanding (and insulting) them.


I don't see a real disagreement, here.

As applies to actual life, your points are well-made. For fictional characters, I'm not so sure - that's the point of fiction, to be able to create new things, up to and including people. Those fictional people will be more or less successful as characters, depending on the writer. Naturally, it can be done really badly and become condescending and offensive, but since I no longer read Anne Rice novels, I'm safe.

In reality, though, it's tough to separate empathy from a sense that you can know somebody else. Sometimes you can, and sometimes you can't - I think this depends more on the inviduals involved than on anything else. Personally, I try not to make assumptions about other people, hard as it is since I just love jumping to conclusions, until I've at least had a chance to have a good talk. Unless someone is trying to sell me something, then all bets are off.

I believe it's necessary to be able to see things from another's point of view (to the extent that is possible), even if that view is antithetical. It makes arguments that much more effective....heh....but it also helps me to see where I'm blindly accepting things I've always held as true and may not be so, and also encourages me to learn more.

All that being said, I'm still fairly judgemental and opinionated. I tried not to be, for a while, then I realized that that's what my brain is for (besides learning and all the autonomic functions, of course) - judging stuff and deciding what I want to think about things.

Yes, Good Omens is an excellent read. It's one of my yearly re-reads, on general principles. Vernor Vinge is another favourite of mine, more of the "hard" sci-fi that I prefer.

And, uh, yes, Adam Baldwin! New show! Tim Minear and Jane Espsenson! Woo-hoo!

"Today we get to meet the real you." Niska - War Stories

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL