Originally posted by jckfan55
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sam Carter/Amanda Tapping Discussion/Appreciation
Collapse
X
-
What Uber said was:
Women writers TEND to write more of the deeper interpersonal moments that people connect with.
And
Women do tend at least to see beyond the story arc to the deeper meanings for the characters and pick up on those subtle, nuanced beats that add layers and layers of depth to moments.
Now, I interpret that to be a subtle way of saying that, by contrast, men TEND to write blow-stuff-up stories really well, but can't write deep character interaction very well, nor write deep characters as well as women.
And sorry, I think that's a really gross generalization.
It may be what's happening on Stargate right now, but I bet I could go out and find other TV shows (and books, and stories) where men are writing perfectly lovely, deeply personal and meaningful scenes between characters.
Good writers can write deep characters of both genders. Good writers can write deeply interpersonal moments regardless of gender.
If we had good writing all the time on Stargate, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The benefit of having a woman writer on staff is obvious because we are getting a lot of bad writing from men who don't understand the female perspective very well. That's part of what makes it bad writing.
Let me put it another way, wouldn't you object to me stating that if Stargate had a staff of all female writers, it would turn into a sappy soap opera without any action or adventure because the characters were too busy talking to each other working out their personal problems to actually go through the gate? I know I would. It's a gross generalization to say that women TEND to be unable to write action and adventure stories, and are much better at writing interpersonal relationships. It does women a disservice to play into such stereotypes, just as Oooober's statement does a disservice to men.
Maybe I'm not making much sense. Maybe Ooober is right, and I just object to it because the moon is made of blue cheese, and I'm in a colby mood at the moment.
My LJ
Comment
-
Originally posted by jckfan55I think it being on Showtime to start with gave the writers etc. a lot more freedom to write some intelligent science fiction stories, with action and humor elements, rather than stereotypical "spandex SciFi."
Oh yea, nevermind
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strix variaWhat Uber said was:
Women writers TEND to write more of the deeper interpersonal moments that people connect with.
And
Women do tend at least to see beyond the story arc to the deeper meanings for the characters and pick up on those subtle, nuanced beats that add layers and layers of depth to moments.
Now, I interpret that to be a subtle way of saying that, by contrast, men TEND to write blow-stuff-up stories really well, but can't write deep character interaction very well, nor write deep characters as well as women.
And sorry, I think that's a really gross generalization.
It may be what's happening on Stargate right now, but I bet I could go out and find other TV shows (and books, and stories) where men are writing perfectly lovely, deeply personal and meaningful scenes between characters.
Good writers can write deep characters of both genders. Good writers can write deeply interpersonal moments regardless of gender.
If we had good writing all the time on Stargate, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The benefit of having a woman writer on staff is obvious because we are getting a lot of bad writing from men who don't understand the female perspective very well. That's part of what makes it bad writing.
Let me put it another way, wouldn't you object to me stating that if Stargate had a staff of all female writers, it would turn into a sappy soap opera without any action or adventure because the characters were too busy talking to each other working out their personal problems to actually go through the gate? I know I would. It's a gross generalization to say that women TEND to be unable to write action and adventure stories, and are much better at writing interpersonal relationships. It does women a disservice to play into such stereotypes, just as Oooober's statement does a disservice to men.
Maybe I'm not making much sense. Maybe Ooober is right, and I just object to it because the moon is made of blue cheese, and I'm in a colby mood at the moment.
And interesting with the cheese moods. You don't have Wisconsin connections do you?
Comment
-
Originally posted by jckfan55Excellent points.
And interesting with the cheese moods. You don't have Wisconsin connections do you?
And mini... I kind of got off track with my last post... I didn't really disagree with anything you said, except in how you interpreted what Ooober was saying.
Ooober, you're lurking... perhaps you could clarify... what did you really mean?
My LJ
Comment
-
Absolutely it's a gross overgeneralization.
I think I even made a point of saying something to that affect and used broad terms like "tend". But in my personal experiences, and that's all I have to go by, I've seen more of the ability to write more on a personal level by women than men.
It certainly wasn't meant to be antagonistic or anti-men writers. I have lots of favorite men writers for that matter.
The point I was trying to make (and clearly very poorly if I irked folks), was that I'd like to have the perspective from women writers.
...You're ALWAYS Welcome in Samanda: Amanda's Community of New Fans and Old Friends...
Comment
-
Originally posted by ÜberSG-1FanAbsolutely it's a gross overgeneralization.
I think I even made a point of saying something to that affect. But in my personal experiences, I've seen more of the ability to write more on a personal level by women than men.
It certainly wasn't meant to be antagonistic or anti-men writers. I have lots of favorite men writers for that matter.
The point I was trying to make (and clearly very poorly if I irked folks), was that I'd like to have the perspective from women writers.
My LJ
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strix variaThat's sort of what I tried to address in Looking Up. I envisioned them abandoning the SGC, but not each other. At least, not right away.
It is a fascinating question, and I could imagine many different scenarios.
Comment
-
There you go again.
I agree with you on all points there mini. My reference was less about avoiding the issue and more about treating the issue with respect and thought.
Unfortunately many people will speak on this issue uninformed and without care for the dare I say 'ripple effect' of their words.
Part of why I got involved in the SVU fandom was because they literally are telling the stories and highlighting the issues in a very real way. There is a lot of respect for the issue in it aswell though. I can tell you that thousands of survivors are finding strength and empowerment through the telling of those stories and I absolutely believe that television is a great medium to provide that passive support.
As for Stargate, it's not a show designed to deal with material that heavy. Therefore attempting to address it would come off as trite because of the overall tone of the show. Bringing that darkness into it, would change the palette of what we know as Stargate.. and if it didn't, then the issue would not be properly handled. Basically there is no way they could go there.
Originally posted by minigeekA shared brain is right, Myrth.
I'm going to make a bold, perhaps even somewhat controversial statement here and say that I think a lot of the time, the real problem stems from people OVERempathizing.
See, for me, art (in all its forms) is about the expression of ideas and emotion. It communicates. In every medium, to every audience, there's a message that's imparted. With mainstream movies, television, etc., the darker, more dangerous messages are far too often "half-censored" due to the worry that offense will be taken. And it is, as you said Myrth, impossible to figure out how every individual is going to feel when impacted with a piece of expression (whether it's written, drawn, filmed or otherwise imparted). So, as with the BSG rape scene which was toned down to "almost-rape" due to the network's terror of being too visceral with it, we end up with a "half-censored", watered down version of real.
Does that make it "easier to take"? I can't answer that. Certainly not for everybody. I can only tell you guys how it makes me personally feel.
I feel very strongly that one of the most powerful ways to confront the evils and the terrors of the world, is to tell the stories of the survivors. With dignity and respect and special attention to detail. Time has a way of dulling the edges of a person's memory. Even the horrible parts. But to gloss over or "half-tell" these kinds of stories is (to my mind) to do a serious injustice to the purpose of the expression.
The stories NEED to be told. And I think, given the right artists involved, they can be told. Well and truly. There is only benefit in that, not harm, and it keeps the flame alight in the minds of those who haven't experienced the terror (whatever it may be); it allows the social "whole" to be granted a gift - not only of empathy, but of knowledge; a modicum of understanding. So that fewer of these sorts of terrors (whatever they may be) can become blunted, or easily dismissed.
The absolute worst thing I think art (in any form) can do, is to "pretty-up" or glorify acts like torture. Or rape. But that does not mean those stories should never be told. Sweeping stories like that under some sort of rug of shame and/or stating that stories like that are "sick" or "twisted", can only imply that those people who have experienced such trauma are somehow caught in the hidden world of "sick" and "twisted" and should also hide, as we hide their story - because it's too difficult to tell anyone; too real and horrible to show. Can you see the folly in that? The inherant disdain that accompanies it? Avoiding the scary stories is far more dangerous than telling them. Or half-telling them, with a dose of sugar on the side to coat the darker parts.
That's not to say that every artistic medium must always deal with darkness, or that every television show should be edgy and dark. Some television products don't support that. SG-1 is not necessarily the platform to tell certain stories, for example.
But to censor those for the sake of censoring them - because someone who is ignorant of what the reality would emotionally entail does not want to "hurt" any feelings, so decides instead not even to find out what that might mean (to research it and to discover what would be a better alternative) - well, we only end up with the standard status-quo, when that happens. The cliche "politically correct" response which everyone (who has no clue what the hurt means) THINKS is the right thing to say/do about it.
No way. TELL the stories. Make them real. Get artists in there who know. Get people to advise who've been there. And make the message matter for a damn change.
That's how I would do it. But that's just me.
(and now I'm kinda unable to type so I'm going to take a break for a bit).sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strix variaMaybe I'm not making much sense. Maybe Ooober is right, and I just object to it because the moon is made of blue cheese, and I'm in a colby mood at the moment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by majorsali'd like to know the background on their relay too. but i DON'T want it to go shippy for them. i don't think it will actually.
did they meet at the academy together? how long have they known each other?
i'd like it if they were distant cousins or something.
have you ever tried to get yourself excited by something that is burning out for you? and it's burning out because of a lack of tlc for it? stargate used to be prime rib, now it's a nice hamburger combo at mcdonalds.
i tried getting a good convo going for us with 'what are you excited by in an upcoming ep?', but... i don't really think most of us 'are' excited by much because we know the writers aren't going to do their best with sam carter. that is beyond sad.
sallysigpic
There are only two things to worry about: either you are well or you are sick.
If you are well, then there is nothing to worry about: but if you are sick; there are two things for you to worry about: either you get well, or you die.
If you get well, then there is nothing to worry about. If you die: then there are two things to worry about: either you go up or down.
If you go up, then there is nothing to worry about. But if you go down, you will be so busy shaking hands with old friends you wont have time to worry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tracy Jane
Just watched Stronghold. I enjoyed it a lot.Spoiler:It was great to see Sam addressing all the troops in front of the Gate with the plan. Her sharing her experience with Cam about telling Pete and her father about the Gate I thought fit into the story too.
Thank you for 10 years of Sam Carter, Amanda Tapping!My LJ "I Live in a Sci-Fi World"My Stargate (Mostly Sam Carter) IconsMy Stargate VideosIt's meant to be!
Comment
-
Originally posted by majorsalfic rec!
i'm reading Countdown to Sam's V-Card by Eliza. it's pure sam/jack smut.
here's the link: http://sjnc17.stargate-brats.net/viewstory.php?sid=1403
sallysigpic
There are only two things to worry about: either you are well or you are sick.
If you are well, then there is nothing to worry about: but if you are sick; there are two things for you to worry about: either you get well, or you die.
If you get well, then there is nothing to worry about. If you die: then there are two things to worry about: either you go up or down.
If you go up, then there is nothing to worry about. But if you go down, you will be so busy shaking hands with old friends you wont have time to worry.
Comment
Comment