orangewaxlion, nah, I meant that Angel was canceled with justification (from a business point of view--still sucks that it didn't receive a sixth season from a fan perspective, not getting to see where certain arcs were headed). It may've been the 2nd highest rated show on The WB that year, can't recall, but I do remember that it mostly came down to 20th Century Fox setting the renewal of the licensing fee too high for The WB to be willing or able to pony up the cash for it.

Kris | November 30, 11:53 CET

I believe Angel S5 indeed placed 2nd for the network. If I understood it correctly the mayor factors for Angel's cancellation were (1) that the WB preferred acquiring Warner Brothers shows over Fox ones and (2) that Joss pressured for an early pick-up.

the Groosalugg | November 30, 15:29 CET

Interesting. I would've liked to see Rosenberg (hey, she shares Willow's last name!) write an episode or two of Buffy and Angel, even though I'm not a fan of the Twilight series. Well, she did get her dreams fulfilled -- in a way, she got to write for a series with an enthusiastic fanbase that involves vampires and werewolves.

Mcjw_serenity | December 01, 00:42 CET

Forgive me, but I don't recall ever having extreme nightmares because of a relationship burning out. Or sitting and doing nothing for months and months because the other person's not there. And I'm not all that far removed from "first love."

Also? They dated for a couple of months. That's it.

The Dark Shape | December 01, 00:49 CET

I don't know about nightmares, but pining for months? Sure. A couple of months of relationship is a lifetime at that age.

Again, I haven't seen the movie and don't care to, but calling sexist on the love-and-pining aspect of it seems to be missing the point. Call sexist on the female glass ceiling in the workplace, or the military. But call it on a person's emotions and you've traveled to another ballpark. Her feelings are sexist against herself? They're wrong somehow? Nevermind that it was written by a woman and has a massively female audience. That's one of the central contradictions of feminism, when it decides to travel to that ballpark.

dispatch | December 01, 12:30 CET

Yeah, I actually agree with dispatch on that. You cannot judge fantasies, and even feminists should be allowed to have them :) You can judge literature, however, and entertainment purely based on fantasy, lacking any attempt to examine or say something interesting, is almost completely without value.

hence | December 01, 13:21 CET

Well, except entertainment value ;). Agreed, fantasies that stay fantasy shouldn't be judged and I personally believe that teenagers are, on average, pretty savvy about what's real and what's not and the line between. And also agreed, emotions run high at that age and we've all felt that the world's ending because he/she doesn't love me any more - I guess the point there is whether fiction should be aspirational first (i.e. set a good example) or whether it should be entertaining first and aspirational second (or not necessarily at all).

In some ways this kind of reminds me of "The Da Vinci Code", another book many people enjoyed but which many people consider to be very poor quality (i've only read the first few pages myself but they were pretty terrible) and some even consider to be quite sexist (apparently his female characters are all badly written, one dimensional "beautiful geek" clichés, again I can't vouch for it). It also promotes frauds and hoaxes as fact and encourages credulity. But if people enjoy it they enjoy it, pointing out its flaws isn't going to change that (though it can be fun on occasion ;).

Saje | December 01, 14:06 CET

That’s why I said “almost no value” ;)

I partly blame Joss for this, but he’s managed to spoil me with entertainment that encourages interpretation, and it has added to how analytical I am with popular culture. The few Dan Brown novels I’ve read I remember as being ... actually, I can’t seem to remember them at all. But it wouldn’t surprise me that if I reread them now I’d find several things to be irritated with.

Twilight is perhaps worse than merely worthless. It’s not meant to be interpreted (but how’re you supposed to know beforehand?) and if you do it’s a bit like getting punched in the gut with the horrible implications of its core surrender fantasy. And instead of me yammering about it here the author could have supplied the therapy of addressing some problems within the novel.

hence | December 01, 15:32 CET

That’s why I said “almost no value” ;)

Fair enough ;).

I partly blame Joss for this, but he’s managed to spoil me with entertainment that encourages interpretation, and it has added to how analytical I am with popular culture.

Damn you Joss ! *shakes fist* ;-). I guess I always saw books that way (and films) but Joss certainly made me think that way about television when I hadn't before. I still enjoy all kinds of TV though, the question I ask myself being "What is this trying to do and does it do it ?" - Stargate: SG1 is great fluff TV but it's still (mostly) great TV (IMO), being "fluffy" doesn't disqualify it from being great because it knows it's "fluffy". Buffy is great but not fluff TV. Is that a greater great ? That depends what I want when I sit down to watch the box. I like "active viewing" but sometimes I also like "inactive viewing" (or "less active" is maybe more accurate, you always get more from any TV show by paying attention). The two can co-exist quite happily in the same person, I know this cos I am the same person as me ;).

Seems similar with 'Twilight' (except it's possibly not even well made for what it is, not read 'em, can't comment). For most fans I doubt it's all they read. And it's a surrender fantasy ? OK, some women have those (so do some men), why shouldn't they be allowed to indulge in them if they choose ? It's only really assuming that it'll go from "surrender fantasy" to "surrender reality" that causes it to be considered as anything more than entertainment. Most fantasies have horrible implications in reality (of one sort or another - Buffy was a strong empowered woman. But she also had the weight of the world on her shoulders constantly and died - twice - before she reached her 21st birthday), that's why they should stay fantasies.

Saje | December 01, 16:37 CET

I won’t pretend to have a unified theory on how to evaluate entertainment. I just know that some things may affect your mood momentarily, and some things can be powerful enough to change a small part of you forever. I don’t wish to overstate things, but I think it’s true (except the forever part, that was a lie). How affecting something will be is predicated on how true it is, and this goes beyond intellectual truth.

I’m arguing that Twilight is untrue. It’s pure fantasy because it does away with negative consequence and inconvenient conflict, and it’s not really about human beings; Bella may be madly in love and that can involve a fair amount of self-abandonment, but she’s been completely emptied. And whilst lies can be immensely powerful, they are kind of worthless by definition. I wish there were some interpretation of these things that didn’t run headlong into anti-feminism (though it’s more like anti-humanism, with a decent portion of, frankly disgusting, religious nonsense) because that might otherwise have added some value to it.

And it's a surrender fantasy ? OK, some women have those (so do some men), why shouldn't they be allowed to indulge in them if they choose ?

Indulge away, I’d say :) I never considered my argument to have anything to say except for what constitutes good writing. If my criticism seems tortuous it’s because of my dislike of dictating what is acceptable to write about coupled with the notion that there really is such a thing as a bad book.

hence | December 01, 20:32 CET

I don’t wish to overstate things, but I think it’s true (except the forever part, that was a lie). How affecting something will be is predicated on how true it is, and this goes beyond intellectual truth.

Totally agree (given the same disclaimer to keep entropy happy ;), fiction can touch us and change us for life (though not all fiction does and which does is an individual matter). What I have real trouble with (in the context of 'Twilight' in this instance but any book or film's the same) is that it can take e.g. a normal (or average, however you want to put it) girl/woman and turn her into a simpering idjet thinking "Hmm, this autonomy lark is totally overrated, I need a man to tell me what to do". Fictional truth can provide a "tipping point" after many other influences have amassed or it can give you a slight initial nudge in a particular direction but it can't achieve a complete turnaround in character IMO (especially when it's competing with so many other influences nudging in the opposite direction).

If my criticism seems tortuous it’s because of my dislike of dictating what is acceptable to write about coupled with the notion that there really is such a thing as a bad book.

I appreciate the line walking ;). Bad books exist by consensus IMO (i.e. what we mostly/all agree is bad technique is bad technique) but I don't think there're a set of rules of writing "out there" that are intrinsic and determine whether something's good or bad, there's no objective metric of badness (although we can arguably be objective about the consensus opinion *nods to GVH* ;) and very badly written books can still be very widely enjoyed and can still provide those changes/insights you mention above, depending on the individual. The closest we might come to intrinsic IMO is some "sense" within us based on how we understand language which could have a genetic component - some linguistic or narrative constructions may be more in keeping with that sense and therefore more appealing (the same may be true of some shapes/patterns/visuo-spatial relationships etc. and so results our "sense of beauty") but given the huge variety of languages around the world i'd say that intrinsic sense would have to be very generalised, almost more on the level of a physiological aversion/attraction (sort of like a pleasant smell).

All other criteria for judging art are born of culture IMO which doesn't necessarily make them any less "real" BTW (laws are partly cultural, you could even make a case that mathematics is partly cultural, they're still very real and very important to us) but it does make them (at least partly) arbitrary.

Saje | December 01, 21:38 CET

"Hmm, this autonomy lark is totally overrated, I need a man to tell me what to do"

Hehe, and yeah, these things do happen. I’ve witnessed it myself, and it’s one of the few honest things that can be found in the first book. I think you’re absolute right when you say that it has to be part of the character before it can be “tickled” by any fiction. Art in any form is not about moulding individuality; it is an instrument for introspection which in turn triggers change, at least ideally. In any case, something other than a book might trigger the same thought processe, so I don’t think it would be helpful to avoid fiction simply because it can have an effect. Where Twilight truly renders a disservice to its affected reader is in its ignorance of the consequences of its premise. Introspection for that part will have to come from other quarters.

It really isn’t helpful to label things as bad, you're right, because the concept is extremely fuzzy and relative, and it makes me sleepy when I think about it. On some basic level there is something like human truth, though. It may change, but we have time to talk about it because it moves on an evolutionary timescale :)

hence | December 01, 23:27 CET