A Different Kind of Media Bias?

I am a television junkie. It started at a young age, with my mother fueling my habit. We'd roll the television table around the corner and watch while we ate. When she bought a new set, the old one went in my bedroom. I fell asleep most night with it on.

No surprise that I grew up still loving television. And while I'll watch a not-so-great show if it's fun, my tastes have become a bit more discerning. There is a lot of good storytelling on TV these days. Sometimes what I see on the tube is better than what I see at the movies. There's more originality and risk-taking, especially on networks like BBC, HBO and Showtime. AMC and USA also produce a fair share of good programming.

Which leads me to The Killing on AMC. The review I heard on NPR described it as Twin Peaks meets 24 meets Murder One meets The X-Files. Okay, they had my attention.  Here is the blurb from AMC's website:

The Killing ties together three distinct stories around a single murder including the detectives assigned to the case, the victim's grieving family, and the suspects. Set in Seattle, the story also explores local politics as it follows politicians connected to the case. As the series unfolds, it becomes clear that there are no accidents; everyone has a secret, and while the characters think they've moved on, their past isn't done with them. 

 Cool, right?

Well, no.

I've watched four episodes now, and I don't see where all the love is coming from. Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, NPR, etc. all gave glowing reviews of this show. I will admit that the story line with the victim's grieving family is something I haven't seen handled in depth on television before. It's realistic and well-acted.

However, the rest of the show is one big cliche'. Let me list just a few:

-Cop gets handed a big case on her "last day" at work
-Cop also gets saddled with a new partner
-Said partner has just moved to homicide from vice, with all the twitchy suspect behaviors that an undercover vice cop can be expected to display
-Single mother (Cop) is resisting making commitment to "nice guy" 
-Politician can't trust people in his own camp
-Politician is sleeping with an aide

-It is hinted that politician's dead wife was a victim of violent crime
-Politician's campaign is linked to murder victim
-Victim was a good kid from wrong side of tracks
-Victim's ex-boyfriend is a bad kid with lots of money
-Victim's best friend didn't know what she was up to

And so on.

I've heard the lead, Mireille Enos, praised for her acting. Again, sorry, but all she does is chew gum and stare--at people, at evidence, at walls. It would fine if you could see any kind of emotion or even evidence of thinking going on behind those stares, but there isn't.

Why the big disconnect then between what the critics are all saying and what I think?

I could be totally off base. But there have been enough comments from others that I don't think I'm waaaay out there. I think that critics get in ruts just like the rest of us. They love a book from Author Q or a movie from Director J or Actor V. And maybe they like the next effort. And the next. And soon, anything that Author, Director, Actor or TV Network does is A-Okay by them. 

The opposite happens, too. Author P, Director I and Actor U can do nothing right. Maybe some of their efforts haven't produced the best results. But soon it doesn't matter. The best book ever written or the best movie ever made will be roundly trounced by these critics simply because it comes from these people.

Does this just mean that critics are human? Perhaps. But I find it disappointing when those critiques I've trusted steer me in the wrong direction. Does this mean that now I have to distrust everything they say?

6 Favorite Books of 2010

Disclaimer:  I realize that not all of these books debuted in 2010.  However, I read them all this year, so that is why they are my favorites of the year.  And there are 6 instead of 10, not because I didn't read 10 books I liked, but because I'm busy and don't have time to write about why I like 10 books.

In no particular order:

Room by Emma Donoghue

I used this book for What I Learned about Writing From this month.  But there is more that I like about it than what I learned from it as a writer.  The premise sounds depressing: a five-year-old boy has spent his entire life in an 11'x11' room; the same room his mother's been imprisoned in for seven years.  Yet, it's not depressing.  Jack has fun in Room.  He adores Ma and thinks life is pretty great.  I know that life in Room must be harder on Ma--how could it not be--but she makes it home for Jack, and I adored her for that.

They both have to face a lot in the second two thirds of the book, each in different ways.  Viewing everything through Jack's eyes makes it at once easier to read and more difficult.  Donoghue has a way of letting us see Ma's struggles filtered through her son's innocence without dampening what she's going through.

I've recommended this book to more than a few people, but always add that it might be a more difficult book to experience if you have children of your own.


Postcards From a Dead Girl by Kirk Farber

I knew about this book long before it was published.  Kirk is a member of Pikes Peak Writers, and I'd heard about his reading at one of their American Icon Contests.  The title already had be interested, then Jenny told me how much she liked his reading--even if they were in competition with each other.  So I knew I'd have to buy it as soon as it came out.

The book does not disappoint. Sid Higgins is the ultimate unreliable narrator, because Sid just may be losing his mind.  He's getting postcards from his ex-girlfriend Zoe, who disappeared on trip to Europe she started about a year before.  All of the postcards are dated from not long after she left, and Sid is trying to find out why they were delayed.  In addition to Sid's weird postcard dilemma, he's being haunted by his mother, whose ghost is stuck in a wine bottle in the cellar, he thinks he has a brain tumor, and his sister is pretty fed up with him.

At first I was nervous about the fact that the book has very short chapters, but it works.  A lot about this book works.  And while I sometimes found myself being frustrated with Sid, I believe it was the author's intent.  I'll ask him the next time I run into him.


Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. 

I have to admit I was a bit apprehensive about finally reading this one.  So many people have raved about it for so long that I just knew it couldn't live up to expectations.  Boy howdy, was I wrong.

From the description of the cast of characters, I was hooked.  How can you resist an angel who "didn't so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards?" 

Aziraphale and Crowley have been the earthly reps for Good and Evil for a very, very long time.  And they like it here.  There's one little problem: the Apocalypse is going to happen, on Saturday.  Which means they'll have to go back to their respective homes.  Can they stop it? 

There's an Anti-Christ, witch hunters, a witch, various demons, a handful of "horsemen," a bunch of kids and Dog.

Gaiman and Pratchett each have strong, funny voices.  The combination of the two could have been overwhelming.  But styles blended seamlessly.  They claim that they can't tell who wrote what.  I tend to believe them. 

It kept me laughing--sometimes until I had to set the book down and wipe my eyes--and turning pages right up to the end. 



Hurricane Punch by Tim Dorsey

I received this book from a friend.  "It's about a serial killer in Florida."  Ah, a Dexter knock off, I thought.  Wrong again.

Serge Storms and his buddy Coleman are traveling around the state, just ahead or just behind the hurricanes that are pounding it, wreaking almost as much havoc as the storms.  Especially once a rival killer starts taunting Serge.

There are some pretty graphic descriptions of what happens to the victims, which I probably could have done without.  But these are tempered by some of the funniest writing I've seen. 

After finishing Hurricane Punch, I went out and bought the first two books in the series.  I'm looking forward to spending some more time with Serge--just on paper of course.


The Spellman's Strike Back by Lisa Lutz

The Spellmans are back in all their wacky glory.  Izzy is prepping to take over the family's detective agency, still going to therapy and dating the hunky Irish owner of her favorite bar.  Mom's none too happy and finds a way to bribe Izzy to date other men.  David's still unemployed and dating Maggie, Henry's ex.  Rae's acting weird. 

All in all, life as usual for the family. 

This fourth installment is the best of the bunch, and that's saying a lot.  All the family intrigue, actual cases, romance and laughter are here.  Izzy may be evolving, slowly, but she's every bit as much fun as ever.


The Passage by Justin Cronen

A Government experiment goes wrong.  Not only that, it is set loose on the population.  The world as we know it ends and another one begins.

Sounds like King's The Stand.  And the set up to The Passage definitely reminded me of it.  But the disaster is different.  It may still be a kind of virus, but one that turns people into vampires.  With all the vampire hype recently, I was skeptical.  But Jenny recommended it, so I gave it a try.

Many reviewers have talked about the first third of the book being brilliant and the rest bogging down.  I didn't feel that.  The second second slowed it's pace, but it's the aftermath.  I thought there was plenty of excitement, and also how things can become mundane after ninety years--even fighting vampires.

My main disappointment was the abrupt end.  At least I had been warned that the book is the first in a trilogy.  While he did wrap up one part of the story line, Cronen left the reader hanging over a big old cliff.  I'll pick up the second one, for sure.


Juliet by Anne Fortier

This doesn't count in the 6, because I haven't finished it yet.  But it could be another one that I finish before the end of the year that would make the list--Juliet by Anne Fortier.  I'm about 3/4 of the way through, and I'm still loving it. 

Respectfully Disagree

I've been pondering this post for a while now. Partly because I've been busy at work--a good thing in these times. Partly because I've also been busy with rewrites on MMG--an extremely good thing. And partly because I wasn't sure how to put it without maybe stepping on toes.

But I think have the time and a way of doing it.

Jenny posted about King's interview where he says that JK Rowling = good writing while Stephanie Meyer = bad writing. She questions who gets to make those decisions. Then Fleur posted about talking with her students about the same thing. Her final conclusion for them was that if they like it, it's good.

I have to disagree with that. There is a reason that in a previous time--not that long ago, really--critics were a rarefied breed. There just weren't that many around for books, art, music or movies. Why was that? Burly, hairy men standing guard at the gates to keep out the riff-raff? Well, in a way. The bodyguards however were education. A specific kind of education. These critics knew about movies or books or music or art or whatever else they were critiquing. It took time to learn about each art form and what the structures and standards were. And, also, to learn what was new and cutting edge. What broke the rules in an interesting and deliberate way and what just didn't have a clue.

Now anyone with a blog and the inclination can post a review of anything they want. See previous posts for examples from this author. Doesn't matter if you don't know a comma from a coma or a landscape from a landing strip. You have an opinion? It's call a critique.

Now, I can say whether or not I like something. And I have every right to that opinion and to post it wherever I want as long as it doesn't stray into libel. But liking something and knowing if it's "good" or not are too different things.

Case in point: I may love Big Macs. (I'm so-so on them, but do get the occasional craving). Does that mean they are an example of good cooking? Absolutely not. They fill one up. Can be tasty with enough tartar--I mean special sauce to cover up the cardboardy beef and wilted shreds of iceberg lettuce. But no one needs to study for years to figure out how to put one together.

There are movies that are not acted, written or filmed particularly well (The Cutting Edge comes to mind) that I watch every time they're on television. I can chew through some pretty horribly written mysteries when I've read too many heavier, and much better written, books in a row and just need to chill out for a bit. So there are examples of things I like that I know aren't particularly good.

Then take Dante's Inferno. As stated previously, I struggled with it. Called it 17th Century Burn Book. But I recognize why it's lasted all these centuries. Well, partly because of the religious aspect, BUT the structure, the artistry, the attention to detail are all amazing. I get it. I just didn't like it. My not liking it doesn't make it any less than what it is.

I think a better way to put it is: "If you like it, that's okay. It's sometimes enough just to like it. That doesn't necessarily mean it's well-executed. And just because you didn't enjoy something, doesn't necessarily make it bad. You may just need to learn a bit more so you understand why it's considered great. May not make you like it any better, but it just might."

A Tale of Two Plays

It's taken me a week to decide whether to post this or not. Not that it's particularly controversial, but because I was seriously doubting my own opinion. Theatreworks at UCCS just finished their season with two plays about the Middle East done in repertoire. They are meant as a means to better understand cultures that are quite literally foreign to most of us. Both plays received rave reviews locally and from the Denver Post arts critic. I agree with one, but not the other.

Nine Parts of Desire is a one-woman play featuring Karen Slack as nine Iraqi women. She moves from one position on the stage to another seamlessly, changing character as she goes. With the help of a black piece of cloth used as everything from a shawl to a head scarf to a skirt, Slack also physically transforms from a preteen girl to an elder woman to a fat Bedouin divorcee to a hip London intellectual to a twenty-something Iraqi-American. Over the course of the play, the tension and pathos build until the actress and the audience are emotionally drained. This was a moving, visceral experience. Bits of it still come back to me a week later.

Dar al-Harb, the other play, keeps coming back to, but not in a good way. It is based on the true event of Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. He came to Greeley, Colorado, in 1949 to attend what was then a teaching college. He left a short time later so hating America that he is now known as the father of Islamic radicalism. Murry Ross, Artistic Director of Theatreworks, wrote this play as a way to explain what may have happened. At least that's the story in the program.

Let me say that I like plays that combine a lot of things. Last year's Wonderland, a reimagining of the Alice story, was great. And Something's Rotten had three actors trying to do Hamlet with a narcoleptic lead. Since they were short on cast, Teddy Ruxpin played Polonius--brilliant. But this felt more like Ross couldn't decide what kind of play he wanted to write so he threw in a bit of everything. There is a video screen behind the action that shows 1949 pop culture pictures, often in concert with radio ads or popular music. One of the musical numbers I enjoyed was Qutb and a co-ed lipsyncing to Baby It's Cold Outside.

There are moments when Ross touches on things that may have upset Qutb and caused his low opinion of America. Churches that promote fraternization between young people through socials and dances, co-eds in revealing clothing, a culture of consumerism in the post-war boom, students making fun of his differences. But then he mixes it up with a jinn whose name is John Lee Hooker, a woman who pretends to be Muslim and wears a burka in an attempt to seduce Qutb, and three clerics who act as a sort of Greek chorus. I'm not Muslim, but I was offended at several points.

Their hearts may have been in the right place, but the outcome of their intentions was definitely mixed. Maybe next time one of their own decides to pen a screenplay, they'll send it through a critiquing process before producing it.

Movies That Just Miss

Went to see There Will Be Blood on Friday night. I was really looking forward to seeing the movie. Heard nothing but good things about it and love Daniel Day Lewis. On one of her blogs, Ali talks about our walking out of the movie and going, "Well, then." And that is true.

The movie, if you haven't seen or read about it, is ostenibly about drilling for oil at the turn of the last century. It is also about family, greed, corruption and religion. Daniel Day Lewis is a self-made oil man, Daniel Plainview, who adopts a baby orphaned by an accident on one of his oil rigs. He finds a small, dirt-poor town sitting on top of a huge oil reserve and sets about duping the townsfolk in order to buy up the land. A local boy, a self-proclaimed profit, tries to oppose Daniel throughout. The movie follows the successes and tragedies that shape Daniel and everyone around him throughout the next dozen or so years.

I'm not sure exactly what didn't work for me. I thought the acting was superb. Daniel Day Lewis commands the screen. As does Paul Dano in a much quieter way as profit Eli Sunday. Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the screenplay from the book Oil by Upton Sinclair, and he directed the film. It seemed that at times he just started the camera, called "Action" and walked away for a while. And these are usually the same times when the score overwhelms the movie. I felt like "I get it, they're surveying" or "Yep, he's bonding with the baby."

When things do happen, they are usually gut wrenching. So I was left both hoping that something would happen and dreading it at the same time. There are things you see coming for a long time. Occasionally, the result of the event is different than what you expected, but not in a satisfying "Ah, I didn't see that coming" way. More of a "Hum, why that happen?" way.

Maybe it's because Anderson directed and wrote the screenplay so there was one place where an edit could have happened missing. I just don't know. Much of the dialogue seemed ad libbed, and not in a good way. Frankly, writers are paid for a reason, and much of it is to write good dialogue.

It was a movie that wanted to be great. I wanted it to be great. It just wasn't.

The New TV Season - Part Two - Great to Okay

Since my favorite of the new crop of shows is on tonight, I thought I'd finish my reviews. Again, this is not a comprehensive list of all the new shows. I usually skip sitcoms, and I don't get any of the premium channels.

Pushing Daisies is one of the supernatural-type shows that works for me--very well. Lee Pace plays Ned, who can bring the dead back with one touch. If he touches the person, or animal or plant, a second time it is dead forever. And if he leaves the touchee alive for more than a minute, something or someone else dies in its place. Ned revives his childhood sweetheart and leaves her alive. Now he can't touch her, but their romance is growing. There are a lot of heavy-hitting actors, many from Broadway, here. The show is color saturated, in every way. Jim Dale provides the narration. I love it, but it doesn't seem to be getting the numbers it may need to survive.

Chuck is just plain fun. A computer geek accidentally downloads all of the country's encrypted secrets into his brain when he opens an email from a former friend. Now he has a beautiful CIA agent and a big, scary NSA agent following him around. The NSA agent is played by Adam Baldwin--Jayne to fans of Firefly. I'd watch it just for him. A great lead-in to Heroes.

Moonlight. Sorry, Whit, but I'm enjoying the vampire show. And I like some of the messing with the usual vampire mythos. Garlic? Tastes great on pizza. Holy water? Makes you wet. And let's face it, Alex O'Loughlin as Mick St. John is hot. David Boreanaz never really did anything for me. But this guy? Oh, yeah. If you've got nothing else to do on a Friday night, why not?

Women's Murder Club is based on a series by James Patterson--which I haven't read, but may check out now. Three 30-something friends--a homicide detective, an assistant DA and a coroner--solve crime and deal with life in San Francisco. They are joined in their 'club' by a young investigative reporter. The nice thing about these 4 urban professional women who are each juggling work and a personal life with varying degrees of success is that not once did they find it necessary to discuss shoes. At least in the pilot.

So that's it for the winners. Sorry, Viva Laughlin. Had you stuck with people singing along with the radio (or just let Hugh Jackman break into song whenever he hits the casino), it might have worked for me. But Melanie Griffith doesn't have the pipes, and the Blondie song came out of nowhere. Oh well.

As with any review, your mileage may vary.

The New TV Season - Part One - Eh

That's been my reaction to most of the new shows this season. I was really looking forward to many of them, although part of me was a little skeptical of all the 'supernatural' type shows. Was it an attempt to give the viewers something new and different or just jumping on the Lost and Heroes bandwagon. No surprise. Most of them left me flat.

Bionic Woman while a remake, which is always suspect, does give a better starting premise for how Jamie Somers becomes bionic. And there are some real issues for her to deal with. But Michelle Ryan has about three expressions she uses throughout. And all are overblown. So, no.

Life seemed like a good premise. A cop who was framed for a murder is given life in prison, but is released after his appeal goes through 15 years later. He gets a huge settlement for wrongful imprisonment, but still goes back to work as a detective. Zen aphorisms pour forth throughout the day. But---dun, dun, daaaaaaaaa---he's really spending his spare time trying to find out who framed him. Again, the overacting really ruined this one for me. Damien Lewis mugs to the camera. Now I was predisposed against him since he played Soames in The Forsyte Saga, but he did a great job in that. Just not here. And the spunky, younger, female partner who is assigned to him as a punishment but we all know will end up in love with him is just one cliche' too many.

Journeyman doesn't stay in one place long enough for the audience to connect with anyone. Since the main character doesn't know what's happening to him, we're just as confused as he is. This is an example of why protagonists who are active are more interesting than those who are acted upon.

There are also a lot of non-supernatural shows starting this season, too. A lot of those that I've watched also fall into the eh category.

Big Shots is the male version of Desperate Housewives. Don't care about the 'trials and tribulations' of rich, beautiful women. The men aren't any more sympathetic or interesting.

Kid Nation raised so much controversy that I did give in and watch the first episode because it sounded like it was so different from the Survivor/Big Brother kind of reality show (which I can't stand--no offense meant to those who enjoy them). Nope. While the kids were busy working things out for themselves, the producers kept inserting themselves through books with hints and then having them split up the town into four groups and then having a contest to determine who gets to be in which social class. So, Survivor with children without the voting off.

Cane has another interesting premise. Cuban-Americans running a sugar and rum business in South Florida. Lots of attractive people enjoying their money. Of course there is the ick factor of Jimmy Smits' character being married to his adoptive sister. This one I might actually watch, but I read from nine until ten and it wasn't quite compelling enough to tape and watch on Saturday. Maybe on DVD later.

I don't generally watch sitcoms so I won't be talking about those. And I still haven't watched Viva Laughlin or Samantha Who? so those will have to wait. Stay tuned for the ones I liked--there were a couple.

The Heir of Autumn

Up late again last night turning pages through the end of The Heir of Autumn. Man, am I glad I stayed with it. All the good things I talked about in the "Should I Stay" post held. But talk about ramping up the tension and the stakes! These guys know their stuff.

I won't give away the end, but I loved it. It's satisfying for the single book, but also left me wanting to read the second one to see what happens next. Very nicely done, Todd & Giles. Of course, when I do finish The Mistress of Winter, I'll have to wait for the third installment to be available. And here I thought having books to anticipate was over after The Deathly Hallows.

So Glad I Stayed

Well, I spoke too soon. And I know better. I hate reading reviews, be they book or movie, where it's obvious the reviewer didn't watch or read the whole thing. More fool me.

I picked up The Heir of Autumn last night to read "one more chapter" to see if I wanted to continue. Wow! The boys pulled out all the stops and thirty pages later I had to force myself to put it down so I could get a minimum amount of sleep for today. Everyone is in jeopardy in some way, the action is ramped up and people are starting to act in, not predictable, but believeable ways.

This is looking like a fun ride.