Meta rec

xparrot has a a great breakdown on the writers of SGA, which episodes they wrote and an overall analysis of their writing style. (Subjective, of course, but it's impossible not to be, and she's very up-front about that.)

As analytical and meta-riffic as I can be about the shows I watch and the things I read, and though I really enjoyed reading her entry, for some reason my own interests don't really lie in that particular meta direction. After it came up in comments to my last entry, I was thinking about why that might be, because I've basically always been that way -- in comics fandom, for example, I never could remember (or cared to remember) which writer or artists was responsible for which character or story arc ... well, aside from a few outstanding counter-examples. Obviously, I'm not completely tone-deaf to it.

What I realized, though, is that I think I prefer looking at them from an in-universe rather than out-of-universe perspective. I read (or watch TV) because I want to be immersed in their reality, not looking at them with the awareness that they aren't real. (I'm well aware that they aren't real, of course -- I'm not completely crazy -- I just prefer not to watch with that awareness in mind.) I think that might partly explain why a) I don't really like theatre very much (where awareness of one's own role as audience is part of its charm) and b) why the things that bother me most and tend to throw me out of a show are not plot-related, but world-building issues. Also, in general and with some exceptions, I prefer watching relatively unknown actors to famous ones, because it's easier to believe in them as the character.

Some things, of course, can only be explained from an out-of-universe perspective. Sometimes it's really enjoyable to know those little details -- where such-and-such a prop came from, or why a certain questionable plot decision is really in there. But overall, I guess, it's definitely not the foremost part of my fannish involvement, and often not any part of it at all. In most of the fandoms I've been in, I've never even wanted to know anything about the actors or the behind-the-scenes of it. Stargate is one of the few where I've found myself looking at interviews and listening to DVD commentaries -- and reading other people's meta on the behind-the-scenes. *g*

Meta rec

xparrot has a a great breakdown on the writers of SGA, which episodes they wrote and an overall analysis of their writing style. (Subjective, of course, but it's impossible not to be, and she's very up-front about that.)

As analytical and meta-riffic as I can be about the shows I watch and the things I read, and though I really enjoyed reading her entry, for some reason my own interests don't really lie in that particular meta direction. After it came up in comments to my last entry, I was thinking about why that might be, because I've basically always been that way -- in comics fandom, for example, I never could remember (or cared to remember) which writer or artists was responsible for which character or story arc ... well, aside from a few outstanding counter-examples. Obviously, I'm not completely tone-deaf to it.

What I realized, though, is that I think I prefer looking at them from an in-universe rather than out-of-universe perspective. I read (or watch TV) because I want to be immersed in their reality, not looking at them with the awareness that they aren't real. (I'm well aware that they aren't real, of course -- I'm not completely crazy -- I just prefer not to watch with that awareness in mind.) I think that might partly explain why a) I don't really like theatre very much (where awareness of one's own role as audience is part of its charm) and b) why the things that bother me most and tend to throw me out of a show are not plot-related, but world-building issues. Also, in general and with some exceptions, I prefer watching relatively unknown actors to famous ones, because it's easier to believe in them as the character.

Some things, of course, can only be explained from an out-of-universe perspective. Sometimes it's really enjoyable to know those little details -- where such-and-such a prop came from, or why a certain questionable plot decision is really in there. But overall, I guess, it's definitely not the foremost part of my fannish involvement, and often not any part of it at all. In most of the fandoms I've been in, I've never even wanted to know anything about the actors or the behind-the-scenes of it. Stargate is one of the few where I've found myself looking at interviews and listening to DVD commentaries -- and reading other people's meta on the behind-the-scenes. *g*

And a corollary to that last post ...

dvd_commentary is currently taking sign-ups for authors and commenters, and due to the timing, I just got to worrying that my last post could be seen as an oblique criticism of that sort of thing. Which it's not. At all. I volunteered my stories over there and I'm incredibly flattered that someone did ask permission to write a commentary on one of them, which I'm looking forward very much to seeing! But I realized that I hadn't mentioned the comm at all here, and combined with the last post, I didn't want to appear that I was putting them down ...

And a corollary to that last post ...

dvd_commentary is currently taking sign-ups for authors and commenters, and due to the timing, I just got to worrying that my last post could be seen as an oblique criticism of that sort of thing. Which it's not. At all. I volunteered my stories over there and I'm incredibly flattered that someone did ask permission to write a commentary on one of them, which I'm looking forward very much to seeing! But I realized that I hadn't mentioned the comm at all here, and combined with the last post, I didn't want to appear that I was putting them down ...