How far

[mrissa]

We were talking at lunch about Buffy fans, into which category none of us falls. And some of them quite reasonably recognize that Buffy is a matter of individual taste, that some people like it and some do not, but others insist on knowing which episodes one watched and then protesting (no matter what episodes are up for discussion) that that wasn't one of the really good ones.

So it makes me wonder: how far would you go to get at a good show or a good book or even a good fragment of stuff?

I think that most of us will read past a bad first sentence, paragraph, or even chapter if someone we trust has given us reason to believe that the book will be a good one and worth our time. I think, on the other hand, that anyone who wants me to read the ninth Robert Jordan book, on the theory that it will get "really good" very soon and I just read the first bad eight, is smoking crack.

But where's your personal middle ground? A mediocre episode of a television show your friends swear is great? A boring first book of a trilogy that's supposed to be really fascinating in books two and three? How far will you go to get to "the good stuff" before your internal critic decides that the payoff can't possibly be worthwhile? Say for a TV show or a book: when does the off switch get used or the book get sent back to the library? And is it different if you paid to rent a movie/buy a book/get into a movie in the theatre? Is it different for music? How much of your time is worth waiting for the big payoff without little payoffs in the middle?

Well?

Comments

[baronlaw.livejournal.com]

Three is the number, not 4, not 2 unless it is used in geting to the number 3.

I am a firm believer in three strikes your out.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Three of what? Three chapters, three books, three episodes, three minutes, three hours, three instances of something annoying you...?

[splash-the-cat.livejournal.com]

It depends on who's doing the recommending. If it's someone whose tastes usually mesh with mine (lik Mer), I'll go quite a distance to find what they think is the gooey chocolate center. Someone whose tastes only intersect with mine half the time? Usually a few chapters or episodes. A casual aquaintance recommending something? A chapter or an episode. If it doesn't grab me, then it's gone.

[merriehaskell.livejournal.com]

Aw. My Julie loves me. :)

Likewise--it depends on who's doing the rec. I have dear friends, who I love dearly, and did I mention they are dear? --who just have tastes that are impossible to reconcile with my own. I learned, albeit slowly, that they can't be relied upon.

So, initially, I read through Book 4 of Robert Jordan's series before quitting in disgust, but now, I doubt I would get that far based on the same person's rec.

I've less patience with TV shows. I adore Buffy, I really do, but if I hand you the Season 1 DVD set (and I've done that to at least 5 or 6 different people, and they've all gotten hooked, so I don't feel like I'm crazy in doing so), and you don't make it through Episode 1, then I'm not going to argue with you. I know there are so many things on TV I just don't like that everyone else does, and I never really will. Monty Python? Oops. I'm a humorless freak. Oh, well. Survivor? Uhm... ew. Etc. I can probably get everyone on your friends list up in arms with trashing the TV landscape.

Dare I ask who these rampant Buffy-down-your-throat people are? I mean, generically. Why are they insisting, and not listening to your reluctance?

Anyway. I like Buffy on the same level as I liked Babylon 5. There's an arc beyond the monster(alien)-of-the-week. There are some good one-liners. There are some brilliant episodes. There is foreshadowing to die for. And neither show takes or advocates the easy way out. And while I appreciate all these things, some of them are subtle, and don't always make up for the sucky parts. It took me a long time to learn to enjoy both shows to the point that they became appointment television. I resisted my affection for both of them for entire seasons at a time. I can certainly understand not enjoying either of them after seeing 1, 6 or even 10 episodes, even if they aren't "bad" episodes. (And if they *are*... Gaugh! "Gray 17 Is Missing"... Imagine if that were the first ep of Bab-5 I'd seen...)

[merriehaskell.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the actual answer to your question: I've watched 3 Monty Python movies and about 6 eps of the Flying Circus thingie, and I still don't like it. I had a boyfriend who loved it, and that's all I could do for him. I would do the same for most good friends. And have. And that's how I learned to like a lot of the things I have enjoyed.

For the good friends, I think it comes down to "hours out of my life." The equivalent to a week's worth of leisure time. Now that I think about it, that's crazy. But the pay-off has *usually* been worth it in the end.

For people I'm not close with... I give about an hour. One ep of "True Calling." One chapter in this stupid book someone at work handed to me, I don't even remember its name.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure, but this may be similar to dd_b's comment that it depended on the company. I can have more fun watching a mediocre TV show or movie with loved ones than with near-strangers, and either is more fun than watching by myself. Sitting through three movies with a boyfriend can feel to some people like "time together" rather than "entertainment time" in their mental scheme of things.

There is a short list of movies, mostly "girly movies," that I haven't seen because the boys don't want to watch them with me and I don't want to watch them enough to bother, especially without a snarking partner. Good snarking partners are key. And we don't tend to be friends in gender groups. Of my closest girl friends, I'd say Heathah is the only one I sometimes see by myself and by herself, without any of the rest of our families.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Okay, so sometimes is an overstatement. But regularly, certainly.

[pameladean]

It depends on almost anything except the actual work under discussion. It depends, as others have said, on the recommender; it also depends on how much time I have, how open I feel to new things (my average on this is "not so much"), and how long people have been urging me to give this or that a try. There's a period where I resist more or less unconsciously, a period where I am bloody fed up with being persecuted (this has very little to do with the behavior of the recommender, as a rule), and a period where I think, other things being propitious, Oh, well, why not?

Pamela

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

But where do you stop saying, oh, well, why not? Or would you just watch an entire TV series/read an entire book series because one or more of your good recommending buddies really liked it?

I mean, you haven't steered me very far wrong so far, but if I don't like Mary Renault, I'm not going to read more than maybe two of them to find it out. (Is that the one with PDDB next to it on my library list? I think it is. There's someone on the list with that notation anyway.)

I know what you mean about feeling persecuted -- sometimes I have the urge to hide under a pillow and shout, "Leave me aloooooone!" when the other person really hasn't urged unreasonably. This is one of the reasons I corner people and ask them what I should read: because if I bring it up myself, my brain doesn't kick into persecuted mode. Theirs might, but that's no longer really my problem.

The other reason is that I want to know what they think I should read, of course.

[pameladean]

You could certainly get the two wrong Mary Renaults. Ahem. Sorry.

Well, I don't know, I don't have a policy. I mean, I've read the first book of a series David rereads compulsively, and agreed that bits of it were quite neat, and never continued. I refused to watch "Buffy" after about three episodes, but when Raphael told me I must watch a particular first-season episode, I did, and then I was hooked, months after the first attempt. It really depends on the nature of my objection to whatever it is that I am first persuaded to try out. The thing most likely to get me to flatly refuse to do more is bad prose, and the next is particular kinds of violence.

Pamela

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Which are likely to be the good bets, then? Or which are the ones I should avoid?

Some people of my acquaintance do not or will not understand that there are kinds of violence I will not watch on TV or movies. They try to argue with me about how the rest of the series/movie is really good and worth it and if only you can get past that one moment that really is important for the plot it'll really be a good movie and they don't want me to miss out and etc. etc. etc.

But I don't have to, and I won't.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

In the past it has been up to a whole trilogy (Dune) or two (Thomas Covenant) ujst because a friend loved them, but I don't have that sort of free time anymore. If the first book can't hold me, I seriously doubt the rest of the series will -- and I won't even get more than a couple of pages into the first one if it looks truly horrible to a cursory glimpse. However, I can go quite a long way into "entertaining but not great". Entire series, even.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

It depends a lot both on the people recommending (in hard cases, it's almost always multiple people), and on the various *ways* the parts I try are bad (or at least not interesting).

It's also different for TV/movies than it is for books. Trying TV or movies is always a social thing for me; which means I'll tolerate things I probably wouldn't stick through in a book, where I'm getting no payoff other than the story itself. But I almost never get hooked on TV to the point of watching anything *except* as a social thing, either.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

So in what ways are you more tolerant of badness?

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

It's more like, the rate of pleasant events from the TV show doesn't have to be so high if there are *also* pleasant events from the company.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Not very far at all, esp. for TV shows. I've tried to learn to like TV shows that other people were convinced I'd love, but it only turned my initial disinterest into active dislike. The spark is there or it isn't, and if it's there I know it immediately.

It was there for me with the X-Files and Roswell, but not with Buffy or Xena or Smallville. It was there with News Radio, but not with Seinfeld. There with The Simpsons, but not with Futurama. That doesn't even make sense to ME; I can't imagine anybody else being able to predict my tastes!

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean about initial disinterest being turned into active dislike. When I have strident evangelists for various TV shows clamoring at me about how much I'd really truly love it if I only gave it a chance, I have a hard time maintaining neutrality on the topic. Buffy is a good example: no spark there. It and I did not get along. (I have said often that I can only stand to watch Buffy while reading Nabokov, and vice versa, and it seems to be true: each engages a part of my brain that would otherwise get annoyed with the other.) But I have no contempt for most TV shows I don't watch; Not My Fandom, Not My Problem. I had a hard time not getting sneery at people who wouldn't stop gushing about Buffy for awhile there, though: the show was no worse, but a portion of its fans were just obnoxious.

Sometimes I even don't try to recommend a TV show just because I know it'll sound like I'm doing this. My mom felt that The Simpsons encouraged kids to misbehave and disrespect their parents, and I don't really feel it does as a generality, and I also think that there are all kinds of things she'd love about it. But I know that if I say, "Oh, you just saw one of the early eat-my-shorts episodes; you'd really like the one where they were making fun of Maya Angelou and Tom Clancy and Amy Tan all in the same three-minute spot," I'm going to sound like I refuse to see reason on a favorite show. So I let it go.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

I'm curious as to when in the series runs you tried The Simpsons and Futurama. Mostly because liking one but not the other seems odd, and that might be a possible explanation -- a lot of people who started The Simpsons in the middle probably would have hated it in the beginning. And a lot of people who hated it in the beginning eventually came around, for that matter. I don't think that method would work with Futurama.

Not trying to push anything, I'm just trying to figure out something about how this stuff works, in hopes it will help me deal with all the whedonists.

[palinade.livejournal.com]

Like most people, "it depends".

I have a greater tolerance for mediocre TV because I can channel surf. Or skip a few episodes and not feel like I'm wasting precious time. TV watching for me is really about turning off my brain. I am surprised, once in awhile, by some really good writing--pithy dialogue and interesting characters with unique plotlines. And it depends on the TV show.

Novels:
I am far less tolerant of mediocre writing because unlike TV, I am an active participant. I invest serious time and brain power when reading novels. I have high expectations. I expect fluffy books to be *really* entertaining in the same way TV is brainless--the plotting, pacing, and characterization have to be seamless so that the effortless grammar, sentence structure, and style blend invisibly. I expect "stylistic" novels to be intriguing and provocative with similar seamless qualities. I expect not to be be bored, not to immediately think "derivative" and above all, I expect to be surprised.

If I'm not hooked by the first three chapters, I put it down. If I find the pacing by the middle of the book to lag, I may or may not slog on towards the conclusion (it depends on how much faith I have in the writer). If the first book of a series doesn't meet my criteria, but I managed to make it through to the end, I will not buy the sequel.

There are only a few books I couldn't finish. I will finish a bad book just so I can see the entire thing--how did the writer manage to conclude the story, how badly did it fall apart, was it the pace, plot, or something else that drained its energy? Sometimes I will finish a bad book just so I can see what *not* to do.

Movies:
I like bad movies. I like scary horror flicks and bad sci-fi movies with monsters; I like overblown romantic epics. I'm not keen on romantic comedies, but I'm charmed by some of them (like "Three Weddings and a Funeral" and "When Harry Met Sally"). I like dramas and melodramas (I like melodramatic movies and TV shows but not novels. How weird is that?) where men and women weep and rent their sackcloths and toss ashes at their faces. I like quirky films like "Being John Malkovich" and "Donny Darko", "Amelie" and "Delicatessen". I like foreign films. I like cheesy 70s kung-fu flicks. I like Hong Kong cinema. I'm not as familiar with Bollywood films, but they're not any cheesier than the old big Hollywood musicals, which I adore.

Um... there really isn't a film I won't watch except I really don't like bathroom humor. I'm not a big fan of the-bodily-functions-as-comedy-thing or watching stupid people doing stupid things like "Jackass". Films or movies or whatever you want to call them can be mindlessly entertaining (passive) or provocative and intelligent (active). I don't have as high an expectation with movies because half of the movie's brilliance is totally hidden (I know nothing about how or why lighting in a movie makes or breaks a scene; I know nothing about why certain camera angles are better or worse than others; I know nothing about folio and how it affects the overall impact of the film; and so forth). It's the story and characters that hook me. If I like the story (general overall simplistic plot) and characters, I will probably enjoy *something* about the movie even if it's so bad, it makes good MST3k type fodder.

Okay, okay. Mariah Carey's "Glitter" and Roland Emmerich's "Godzilla" have NOTHING redeemable about them.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I know someone -- consider someone a friend -- in fact, she sometimes reads this journal -- who has watched the BeeGees movie of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" twice. I, on the other hand, only watched it once. My dad and I kept hollering in at my mom in the other room, "You have to see this! It's so awful!" Wisely, she stayed in the other room.

So sometimes I have a high tolerance for bad movies. Whereas Daddy and I would never have hollered at Momma to watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" or something like that.

Then again, if he hadn't been there, I wouldn't have turned the TV on in the first place.

"When Harry Met Sally" bothers me in its explicit message: I believe that men and women can be friends without sex interfering. Not all men and all women, certainly not all combinations, but it can happen. Some individual scenes amuse me in it, though.

[palinade.livejournal.com]

The jury is still out, for me, whether or not men and women can be friends without sexual attraction.

I had a conversation about this with some pals in college. None of us could quite come up with the answer. Some were adamant that they were *not* attracted to friends who were members of the desired gender. "The friendship would get in the way," said one. Another friend said he was definitely attracted to the women he was friends with but he was also smart enough to know that he could never be in a relationship with them. And other friends were very poly or bi or over-sexed, so who knows?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

My friend The Other Scott and I have agreed that when we're both too old for sex and have buried a half dozen spouses or so, we will marry each other and keep each other entertained and taken care of in our last years. But until then...we give each other kind of a squicked look, because, uh, no. And he's a very dear friend.

I've been attracted to friends on a pretty regular basis. I've dated friends and would advise people against marrying someone they didn't consider a friend. But it's not compulsory, it doesn't always come with the territory, I can guarantee. Poly, bi, oversexed not withstanding: nobody is attracted to everybody. I would bet that most people aren't even attracted to everybody they like.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

Different answers for different media, I think, though the general answer is "right before it gets good."

Books: well, you know where I pitched The Dark is Rising, ("right before it gets good") and I trust your recommendations more than anyone's. Two chapters is plenty for something with style that annoys me.

It's only in the last couple of years that anyone's recommended a TV show that I don't already know and have well-formed opinions about. And I've not followed any of those up, given time constraints and the fact that we don't have HBO.

Movies come nicely in units of one. I suppose if I hate the first one, I won't go to the sequel. But having watched What Dreams May Come, Suicide Kings, and The Big Lebowski all the way through, I feel inured to any punishment that could be handed out.

I've learned not to listen to anyone but you on music, and sometimes I'm iffy on you.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

"Everyone is crazy but me and thee, and sometimes I suspect thee a little," eh?

If I had turned on the TV and started watching Suicide Kings on cable, I'd have turned it off and run away from the set.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sure I am.

You have a point about movies on TV. But I hardly ever watch movies I like all the way through on TV.

One correction: I was not sufficiently inured to get through Wyrd Sisters. So. Incredibly. Bad.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

Definitely crazy. Seeing things that can't really be there: I just saw Cristian Guzman hit a three-run homer.

[careswen.livejournal.com]

With books, I'll go half-way. If by the time I'm half-way into the book, I don't see what's so gosh-darned special, I stop. Last time, I made the friend-who-loaned-it-to-me tell me what happens in the second half of the book, and then I was even more glad that I had stopped reading!

With a TV show, I'll give it 3 consecutive episodes. That way, I've had a chance to get a sense of context, which is often important for full appreciation. Perhaps this is what your well-intentioned Buffy-harassers mean when they assure you that you haven't seen any of "the good ones" -- Buffy's individual episodes are much better in context. Folks just aren't getting that you already gave it an honest chance.

With a movie at home or at a friend's, I'll usually sit through the whole thing, but if I'm getting bored, I might pick up something else to amuse myself, like a book. At the theater, I'm pretty picky about which movies I'll pay to see at those prices, so I'm rarely disappointed enough to give up.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, we boycotted the MPAA a few years back. Then we decided it didn't have much of a point. Then we realized that there just weren't that many movies we wanted to pay to see (especially at California prices). So now we're done with the boycott, out of the habit, and perfectly happy.

I read through movies and TV shows I enjoy, so that's not always an indicator for me.

[greykev.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I guess I'm something of a media slut, having read multiple volumes of some truly crappy fiction (TSR novels, wolfe, longyear, moorcock...) but a few things will make me put a book down: an --hole main character, cliché epic fantasy.. um, I guess that's really the only two things. I mean I own a heck of a lot of Dr Who novelizations, not that I've read them since I got them, but I still own and move them around with me...

If I'm with a group I will watch crappy movies/TV for the MST3K factor, and I have bought and sat through more bad adaptations of HP Lovecraft than I want to admit. (shrug) On my own I'd probably click away from a show fairly quickly. Tapes & DVDs I try to watch all the way through. Ugh, my roommate and I watched The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, which I would retitle "the long and boring waste of time" with The shining as L&BWoT 2. ::feh!::

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Before this very moment, I don't think anybody would have guessed that "The Shining" was a sequel to "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."