I read up_the_creek’s blog and have a few remarks about it. But in my typical style, these remarks are extremely long and so I’m enclosing them in a spoiler box so as not to make this thread somewhat ugly with something that many of you might consider “off topic”.
However, many of you may not feel that way. So, I figured it would be best to avoid angering the group who would not appreciate a very long post about a blog from some other web site. But, it was really a great blog and so here is the link to it - for those of you who might enjoy reading it:
I read your blog for S3E9, “Do Mail Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?”
. As I read your description of the scene between Clark and Martha coupled with their new “paradigm”, it confirmed my original thought that Martha has to be completely nuts to accept any such arrangement. After all, her entire life is at stake here. She has spent her entire working life at the FBI and she is ready to just toss it over and spend the rest of her life in prison just so that she can have a husband? And it’s only a part time husband. More than that, it’s only an imaginary husband. So many times, I have heard people say “they have to work at marriage”. But Martha actually has to work at forcing herself to believe that her marriage is real.
We have never seen Martha behave in a really crazy way. But given that she has that gun in her drawer, I sense that must be coming. In order for anyone to go along with such an arrangement, they have to be a real screwball. IMO, this is the single most interesting relationship in the entire 3 seasons and I expect something extremely dramatic to result from it. So, I fully agree with you spending so much time in this blog discussing that.
I think the following paragraph summed things up very well:
“And the deal she has made with herself? She’s in denial. She doesn’t want to be alone. Above all, she loves this man - whoever he is.”
I didn’t realize The Center was putting Martha to the test and that was an additional element causing P to be angry with TC (The Centre) and with Gabriel. I am happy when I learn things that I hadn’t previously realized. It may sound like a silly point. But it’s an important point to me.
The following paragraph confused me:
Walking with Gabriel, P instinctively senses danger for Martha and spells it out, E doesn’t miss a thing and notes the change in tone.
I didn’t notice E “not missing a thing” and “noting the change in tone”. But as I recall it, when you said:
"Later, while fetching water for Betty, E comments “It’s only natural you developed feelings for Martha”.
I recall P became visibly angry at that and said, “Thanks for your permission” to E. She replied, “I didn’t mean it like that.” But I didn’t understand. It seemed to me the writer failed to explain just how she did mean it and what the resolution would be (if any) for P & E.
I’ve never been married. But I sense there is a lot of anger shared by most married couples and the often just “swallow the anger” - meaning they just pretend it doesn’t exist - for the sake of the marriage. Anyway, I don’t expect you to reply. I just want to say that exchange confused me and I still don’t understand it. It may be due to the fact I’ve never been married.
Consider the following paragraph:
“If this were real estate, an enormous stretch of beach front would be afforded to E’s conversation with Betty Turner, …”
The above paragraph sounds quite lovely. But I don’t understand the analogy. Did you mean the writer should have spent more time dealing with the conversation between E and Betty? Does “an enormous stretch of beach front” mean “a large portion” or did you mean the conversation was something very beautiful - like a beach front. I didn’t understand that.
Finaly, here are some random notes I made.
. As I watched the “scrabble scene”, I noted that P was unhappy. But I never stopped and thought enough about it to understand all that was going on.
Your analysis as to what P was juggling and “the bitch slap” made the dynamic much more clear to me. So, thanks for that!
. I really liked your insight into Hans and “the wrong cause”. I hadn’t thought of that before and it added a nice element.
. I’m always catching typos. I guess I have an “editor’s eye”. Here is one for you:
"Hans wants rid of … " I think you meant "Hans wants to get rid of … " No?
. I loved your paragraph on “Stan and Ollie”. That was just magnificent. A real LOL moment for me. That convinced me you have real talent as a writer.
I have often daydreamed about becoming a writer. But I don’t have the talent. I can see that now. I don’t know whether to thank you. But I am very
impressed with your level of talent. IMO, it is excellent!
. I was confused by your Notes. When you talked about using the dictionary, I felt the need to look up those words as well. I remember looking up
“paradigm” a long time ago. All I remembered about it was that it confused me.
It still confuses me. Here is what I found in Dictionary.com:
NOUN
- Grammar.
a set of forms all of which contain a particular element, especially the set of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme.
a display in fixed arrangement of such a set, as boy, boy’s, boys, boys’.
It seems to me one would have to be a freaking genius just to understand that. But I don’t think that was the meaning you were using.
Here is meaning I think applies to your blog:
- an example serving as a model; pattern. Synonyms: mold, standard; ideal, paragon, touchstone.
or maybe it was number 3?
-
a. framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.
b. such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group: the company’s business paradigm.
It’s not important to your blog or the show. I’m just unhappy that I couldn’t remember what the word meant even after looking it up. Of course, it was about 20 years ago.
In this case I’m guessing it meant that Martha and Clark are both now thinking of their relationship in a new framework.
PARADIGM Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
I guess the only negative reaction I had was your use of the word “paradigm”. Wouldn’t there have been a simpler word you could have used that most of a TV audience would understand?
I know it will sound elitist, but a TV audience consists of a cross section of the population and it seems to me that only the top ten percent of the population walk around knowing what “paradigm” means.
Or maybe I’m just unhappy that after looking it up 20 years ago, I couldn’t remember what it meant and had to look it up again. And it still confuses me. Yikes! I’m guessing that will sound very sad to anyone reading it.
In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading your blow with the idea that I would try to offer you some advice on being a writer. In the end, I realized how stupid that was because you are obviously very talented far beyond any imaginary daydreams I have ever had about being a writer. But I had a lot of fun while reading your blog and writing this comment about it.
I did add my email addy to the place where it said, “Follow Blog via Email”. And I left a reply too. Do we not get to see what other people have left in that “Reply” box?
P.S. A very minor point:
It is a very minor point. But it’s about the writer (Joshua Brand) and not about your blog. If someone is writing something for the general TV audience, why use a reference to “Dreaming of Electric Sheep?”. I would guess one could come up with many different titles that refer to a “Mail Robot”. Why use something about “Dreaming of Electric Sheep?” I would guess that only a tiny fraction of the general TV audience would have ever heard of the writer “Phillip Dick” or of his book, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”. I could be wrong about that. But it seems to me that author as well as his books (like The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) would only be familiar to the group of people who enjoy Sci-Fi stuff and that is not necessarily the same group of people who would be attracted by this kind of TV show. I have a bad feeling about this point and my little voice is telling me that I would be better off just to forget it. But I remember that the very first thing I thought after watching this episode was that I had a negative reaction to this writer and so I feel the need to ask you whether my point about referring to the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” in the title of this episode might be a mistake. Or do you think I’m just nit-picking about that? Or would you reply that it is just too minor to squawk about?
