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

[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.