And thank you for that eloquent statement. I can accept much tragedy in the name of a good story -- many of my favorite things are broken, as a wise couple of writers I know put it. I can also accept that a good writer needn't spare beloved characters suffering. But I have a hard time accepting a writer who loves playing God more than he loves the characters, more than he loves the world he's made them inhabit, and more in fact than he loves the story he's claiming to tell. (Loving the audience needn't even enter the equation, although it doesn't hurt to credit them with some intelligence.)
I share your sense of absolute wtfuckery about the direction this series took (and while we're passing out love bombs, will give due reverence to your perfect choice of analogy), and that's not inconsistent with admiring a number of things about it. And that too is RTD's prerogative, I agree. He's also within his rights to want to make a gigantic ratings success to help launch his foray into US TV -- writers have to make a living like everyone else, right? And I can't altogether fault him for showing some glee over how well he seems to have succeeded, at least in the short run; that's only human. Or even for dismissing the naysayers, although a little tact never comes amiss.
Where I think he can't have it both ways are his claims to have told an important story, told it supremely well, and to have shed some light on Real Issues about the World We Live In. Either we take that for the marketing spin that it probably is -- in which case we can ask exactly what sort of bill of goods we've been sold, whether the jerk-your-last-tear, haphazard storytelling delivers as promised -- or we take those claims seriously, in which case there is a lot to interrogate here. Rusty, I think you have to choose: either be the God of your TV universe or be a good artist and/or a storyteller with a sense of social responsibility. I don't think this package entitles you to all three. And I would mind less if you would be a little more modest, a little more honest, about your rights as a writer -- one who claims to love your characters and your audience.
ETA: can I link this to my own reaction post, where I'm collecting the most thoughtful and useful discussions I've found?
no subject
I share your sense of absolute wtfuckery about the direction this series took (and while we're passing out love bombs, will give due reverence to your perfect choice of analogy), and that's not inconsistent with admiring a number of things about it. And that too is RTD's prerogative, I agree. He's also within his rights to want to make a gigantic ratings success to help launch his foray into US TV -- writers have to make a living like everyone else, right? And I can't altogether fault him for showing some glee over how well he seems to have succeeded, at least in the short run; that's only human. Or even for dismissing the naysayers, although a little tact never comes amiss.
Where I think he can't have it both ways are his claims to have told an important story, told it supremely well, and to have shed some light on Real Issues about the World We Live In. Either we take that for the marketing spin that it probably is -- in which case we can ask exactly what sort of bill of goods we've been sold, whether the jerk-your-last-tear, haphazard storytelling delivers as promised -- or we take those claims seriously, in which case there is a lot to interrogate here. Rusty, I think you have to choose: either be the God of your TV universe or be a good artist and/or a storyteller with a sense of social responsibility. I don't think this package entitles you to all three. And I would mind less if you would be a little more modest, a little more honest, about your rights as a writer -- one who claims to love your characters and your audience.
ETA: can I link this to my own reaction post, where I'm collecting the most thoughtful and useful discussions I've found?