Answers to meme
Jul. 5th, 2007 12:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richWell, I thought I was just supposed to answer my "ask me anything" questions in the comments of that post, but I guess not. So I'll post them here. I had three comments to address.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
the_dala asked me my opinion on "the Jack/Will potential, post-AWE." I don't think there's any question it's THERE. The undercurrents sparked and flashed in AWE just like they did in CotBP, for the most part, and even without the blatant slashy touching in that advance "script" thing we all read before the movie came out, the "feel" of it was palpable in the finished product.
Curiously, though the two characters' connection was blatant in the movie and the fanfic potential is greater than post-DMC, it's harder to write, at least for me. It seems to be for some other people, too. I suspect the reason is that for the first time (at least for me), I felt the W/E connection and tension. I was also not annoyed with Elizabeth in AWE like I was for the last half of DMC, and was able to sympathize with her again. It makes it harder to separate the two, to lead to any significant J/W interaction - and believe me, it's not for lack of desire to do so on my part.
Which leads into my second point. I have a tendency to try to present my characters empathetically, even if I don't always like them or what they're doing. I find it annoying because I could write more prolifically if I didn't adhere to it so seriously. I couldn't write long J/W fic a few years ago unless I found a good alternate storyline for Elizabeth to follow, and now, canon has made it nearly impossible to do this. The only ways I can think to write J/W plausibly are if Elizabeth dies early, which to me seems a copout; if she dies naturally of old age, and on land, so she doesn't end up being able to choose to serve aboard the Dutchman - which delays J/W by a fair time and pretty much requires Jack to find immortality in some other venue; or if I can pair Elizabeth off with someone else who's around all the time and is a certain kind of man that can replace Will. So far, none have given me great inspiration.
I must admit I'm jealous of the J/E writers. So many have no problem with Elizabeth taking up with Jack and rationalizing it's not violating her terms of faith or her vows of marriage to Will - or, more often, just not caring. And there's nothing at all in canon that specifically requires Will to reciprocate fidelity. But for whatever reason, I just can't write him that way. There's are reasons I like Will, and if I violated those in my writing - I might as well write original fic (which I need to do anyway, but that's neither here nor there).
Now all those things I listed above - those are viable options. The things I can't do - having Will cheat on Elizabeth with Jack - that's also certainly possible for fic, and I have read some good stuff out of that, as well as some J/E and J/W/E. There's also the whole "Jack has an affair with Elizabeth and after he leaves he encounters Will at some point and seduces him as well" angle, which may certainly be a fourth option I could write. There are just mental blocks I need to work through, is all.
a_silver_rose wrote "Paris Hilton had to serve 23 days. Scooter Libby: 0." Jail time in this country has always seemed, to me, a little skewed - especially after working for a defense lawyer for five and a half years and seeing some of the sentences passed down. For example, there was a man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing cocaine, which I know is longer than some rapists serve. Not that cocaine possession is above the law ... but let's consider the relative victimhood commission/potential of each of those scenarios, mmmkay?
Paris Hilton could be locked in an underground garage for the rest of her days, never see another camera lens again, and I'd be satisfied. But that's a general question of taste more than anything. Libby's matter goes above and beyond a mere "jail time" discussion, especially now that Bush is talking about commuting his sentence (I think). We're talking about a man who participated in the commission of treason against the country. Now while I'm not surprised that another traitor would talk about pardoning him, the fact is, any jail time he would serve less than a lifetime isn't really fair. Traitors used to be put to death.
However, he's not being forced to serve time for one reason: If Cheney is charged and indicted, and Libby has to serve time, then Cheney will have to serve time according to the precedent. And there's no way Bush is going to let that happen; I'll be shocked if Cheney's even charged and tried, honestly.
yoiebear asked "what is wrong with this culture and why." She told me she means specifically, media. I'll give the short answer; if I don't, we'll be here until Friday.
Media - by which I presume she means largely news media - is a business like any other. Now in the past, it has been somewhat regarded as a less profitable venture, sacrificing revenues for a degree of autonomy in criticizing the culture around it and informing the populace. But that was up until Reagan abolished the anti-trust laws in the 1980s (and honestly, those laws were only put into place around the time of the Depression anyway; prior to that, yellow and "stunt" journalism was rampant in mainstream media as well). Getting rid of those restrictions meant a few individuals could build up massive empires of multiple print, television, and radio outlets.
Consider this: If you can only own one newspaper in a market, or one station, and not a station AND a newspaper, you're never going to make much of a profit because you can't expect to entirely "capture" all potential advertisers. So, you might as well speak your mind honestly - you don't have much to lose. But if you can suddenly own all of those, in many cities and states, you suddenly have the potential to make money by selling advertising (this is where media money comes from - it's not subscription rates). Well, advertisers buy space/airtime based on circulation/viewership - the higher you have, the more you can charge. This is why an ad in the New York Times costs SO much more than something in your local daily paper. It's also easier to sell the space/airtime.
To get your circulation up, to the point where you can charge that much for ads, you need to pander to the readership. News reporting has always been a little bit like medicine - a potent dosage is good for readers and viewers, but it's usually unpleasant or bland, and not everyone wants to bother with it. But if you give the masses a circus - like who's sleeping with who, or who's having whose baby, or who's flashing their cooch at the paparazzi - why, it's far more entertaining and sells copies/ratings. (As for lack of news coverage in some publications/stations, keep in mind that being rich entitles one to certain tax breaks under the current administration - as well as under Reagan - and toeing the line ensures continuation of same. Put simply, making those in charge happy, or at least not pissing them off, is a higher priority for most media owners and publishers than telling the truth.
the_dala asked me my opinion on "the Jack/Will potential, post-AWE." I don't think there's any question it's THERE. The undercurrents sparked and flashed in AWE just like they did in CotBP, for the most part, and even without the blatant slashy touching in that advance "script" thing we all read before the movie came out, the "feel" of it was palpable in the finished product.Curiously, though the two characters' connection was blatant in the movie and the fanfic potential is greater than post-DMC, it's harder to write, at least for me. It seems to be for some other people, too. I suspect the reason is that for the first time (at least for me), I felt the W/E connection and tension. I was also not annoyed with Elizabeth in AWE like I was for the last half of DMC, and was able to sympathize with her again. It makes it harder to separate the two, to lead to any significant J/W interaction - and believe me, it's not for lack of desire to do so on my part.
Which leads into my second point. I have a tendency to try to present my characters empathetically, even if I don't always like them or what they're doing. I find it annoying because I could write more prolifically if I didn't adhere to it so seriously. I couldn't write long J/W fic a few years ago unless I found a good alternate storyline for Elizabeth to follow, and now, canon has made it nearly impossible to do this. The only ways I can think to write J/W plausibly are if Elizabeth dies early, which to me seems a copout; if she dies naturally of old age, and on land, so she doesn't end up being able to choose to serve aboard the Dutchman - which delays J/W by a fair time and pretty much requires Jack to find immortality in some other venue; or if I can pair Elizabeth off with someone else who's around all the time and is a certain kind of man that can replace Will. So far, none have given me great inspiration.
I must admit I'm jealous of the J/E writers. So many have no problem with Elizabeth taking up with Jack and rationalizing it's not violating her terms of faith or her vows of marriage to Will - or, more often, just not caring. And there's nothing at all in canon that specifically requires Will to reciprocate fidelity. But for whatever reason, I just can't write him that way. There's are reasons I like Will, and if I violated those in my writing - I might as well write original fic (which I need to do anyway, but that's neither here nor there).
Now all those things I listed above - those are viable options. The things I can't do - having Will cheat on Elizabeth with Jack - that's also certainly possible for fic, and I have read some good stuff out of that, as well as some J/E and J/W/E. There's also the whole "Jack has an affair with Elizabeth and after he leaves he encounters Will at some point and seduces him as well" angle, which may certainly be a fourth option I could write. There are just mental blocks I need to work through, is all.
a_silver_rose wrote "Paris Hilton had to serve 23 days. Scooter Libby: 0." Jail time in this country has always seemed, to me, a little skewed - especially after working for a defense lawyer for five and a half years and seeing some of the sentences passed down. For example, there was a man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing cocaine, which I know is longer than some rapists serve. Not that cocaine possession is above the law ... but let's consider the relative victimhood commission/potential of each of those scenarios, mmmkay?Paris Hilton could be locked in an underground garage for the rest of her days, never see another camera lens again, and I'd be satisfied. But that's a general question of taste more than anything. Libby's matter goes above and beyond a mere "jail time" discussion, especially now that Bush is talking about commuting his sentence (I think). We're talking about a man who participated in the commission of treason against the country. Now while I'm not surprised that another traitor would talk about pardoning him, the fact is, any jail time he would serve less than a lifetime isn't really fair. Traitors used to be put to death.
However, he's not being forced to serve time for one reason: If Cheney is charged and indicted, and Libby has to serve time, then Cheney will have to serve time according to the precedent. And there's no way Bush is going to let that happen; I'll be shocked if Cheney's even charged and tried, honestly.
yoiebear asked "what is wrong with this culture and why." She told me she means specifically, media. I'll give the short answer; if I don't, we'll be here until Friday.Media - by which I presume she means largely news media - is a business like any other. Now in the past, it has been somewhat regarded as a less profitable venture, sacrificing revenues for a degree of autonomy in criticizing the culture around it and informing the populace. But that was up until Reagan abolished the anti-trust laws in the 1980s (and honestly, those laws were only put into place around the time of the Depression anyway; prior to that, yellow and "stunt" journalism was rampant in mainstream media as well). Getting rid of those restrictions meant a few individuals could build up massive empires of multiple print, television, and radio outlets.
Consider this: If you can only own one newspaper in a market, or one station, and not a station AND a newspaper, you're never going to make much of a profit because you can't expect to entirely "capture" all potential advertisers. So, you might as well speak your mind honestly - you don't have much to lose. But if you can suddenly own all of those, in many cities and states, you suddenly have the potential to make money by selling advertising (this is where media money comes from - it's not subscription rates). Well, advertisers buy space/airtime based on circulation/viewership - the higher you have, the more you can charge. This is why an ad in the New York Times costs SO much more than something in your local daily paper. It's also easier to sell the space/airtime.
To get your circulation up, to the point where you can charge that much for ads, you need to pander to the readership. News reporting has always been a little bit like medicine - a potent dosage is good for readers and viewers, but it's usually unpleasant or bland, and not everyone wants to bother with it. But if you give the masses a circus - like who's sleeping with who, or who's having whose baby, or who's flashing their cooch at the paparazzi - why, it's far more entertaining and sells copies/ratings. (As for lack of news coverage in some publications/stations, keep in mind that being rich entitles one to certain tax breaks under the current administration - as well as under Reagan - and toeing the line ensures continuation of same. Put simply, making those in charge happy, or at least not pissing them off, is a higher priority for most media owners and publishers than telling the truth.
