#stripperkurt

[ohmypreciousgirl]

√●ж♡♦☀☀♥☼▼►∞⌂ ✌ ✌ ✌ ♨☞✿

You're my other half living unfortunately in another country far away from me, but you know that.

I love you. 

PS: 3 hours for now let's watch Fringe and TVD?!

[ohmypreciousgirl]

k, drop me a message with the link when its up

http://www.livestream.com/natyseixas

[ohmypreciousgirl]

also i have not seen TVD yet BUT woah that gif in your sidebar is very very hot and distracting from writting in this ask box hngg

I have to post this comment, Camila LOL

[itsvolcanoday]

Btw, yes, someone suggested that I watch and review Glee every week.

But I feel like that would break me.

[itsvolcanoday]

stripperkurt replied to your post: You know really irritates me? If Rachel Berry was...

and if Finn was a girl, she would be shown as a possessive, selfish bitch, yes, we know. C`est la Glee.

I stumbled on a post a few minutes ago trying to defend that they're the perfect couple because Rachel's giving things up for him. Because that's a sign of how "happy" she is with him. Honestly, how do people not understand how much this feeds into this recent Twilight-esque rise of romantic misogyny? I don't get it.

[ohmypreciousgirl]

Send this to all of the blogs you love. There is no limit of how many people you send it to because the price of making someone smile is priceless. I’m sending this to you because I adore your blog and I want you to know that I will follow you forever. Your blog is perfection and absolutely flawless. Keep up the good work, keep smiling and keep being the beautiful and amazing person you are and have a fantastic day ahead! ♥

[itsvolcanoday]

I think the best way to call it is spot on affectional parody, like AVPM, is making fun of it and its fans(I have totally played imaginary doctor adventures on my house before, get out) , but it acknowledges that it is the best show you could see on your entire life( plus mocking something in an acid way that is so constantly successful and loved by so many people would be stupid)

Um, you mean, there are Whovians who haven't played imaginary Doctor adventures before? I refuse to believe it. Why else would anyone buy a sonic screwdriver?

But, yes, this is my take on it as well, haha.

[itsvolcanoday]

I don't think a lot of people give Dan Harmon credit for exactly what he's doing, because they're assuming he's "breaking the mold" in the obvious, clever ways he is. Which he is. The way this show plays with genre and medium is fucking phenomenal, and it's probably the best show that has ever been aired to do that. It's metafictional (delineating metafiction from meta because tumblr has real issues with that) but it's beyond metafictional -- it's good metafiction. And that's really fucking hard to do.

But another thing I don't understand is how people think metafictional elements preclude emotional investment. I don't get that. Like, at all. I've worked with a lot of metafiction, and good metafiction always incites emotional investment. It's possible to write a clever, intellectual television show which also appeals to a mass audience, which is what Dan Harmon is trying to do.

Now, does that always work? No. Of course not. Current criticism of it is a fair sign of that. He's doing well on the intellectual side, but failing on the mass appeal side, and that is the failure of the show. And I'll even admit that the show has felt a bit forced and flat since it's come back this spring. But, really, I think we have to keep in mind that these episodes were the ones being written and revised when the writers were told they probably weren't going to have a fourth season. Nearly every show becomes a bit forced when those episodes start to show, because that's an unimaginably horrible mental space to be in as a writer. You've been told that you've failed, but you have this one last chance for your writing to succeed and to keep your livelihood and to keep this project you love afloat. I think it's hard for creative types to excel in those situations, and I think that's what has made it feel forced. I'm more forgiving of that, because I understand those circumstances, but I can see people not being forgiving of it. Hell, I'm even breaking my own rules in this.

Now, the linear character growth issue is something I have a real problem with, because I think we have seen strong character growth. The only difference is that this is how Dan Harmon is really breaking the mold. Community works on a lot of different levels, and I think this is probably one of the hardest to see. He's applying psychological realism to essentially unrealistic and absurdist characters. It's a wonderful comment on the realistic narratives we see in literature today, and I think it's phenomenal. But it's that strategy which subsumes the expectations of linear narratives of development.

The problem is that most people insist on look at these characters as entirely realistic people. And that just doesn't work. The Greendale universe isn't realistic and hasn't been since the first season, and the second you try to apply that realism the whole show falls apart. That's some of the best commentary the show makes -- it's simultaneously applying and subverting the conventions of realism, specifically those in sitcoms. It's decidedly postmodern in that way, and that's what I love most about it. And, yes, that's obvious in the way that the show approaches genre, and I think that's a level that a lot of people "get" and feel very smart for "getting," which is a nice marketing ploy but not much else. But, more subtly, there's a refusal to make the show itself exclusively realistic, which is a lovely disconnect with and comment on the rise of mockumentary and reality television.

I think there has been a lot of character development in small moments, as I argued last night, that I think a lot of people miss because they're often very comedic, and the audience doesn't expect them and so doesn't see them. In the explicit narrative, yes, a lot of the same points are repeated -- and I do see some major issues with this, because the point of Community is to work on multiple levels and the repetition is failing them on this one. But, as I said before, it's also unfair to judge the show only on its explicit narrative, because there are so many layers to it.

The idea of applying psychological realism to absurd characters is a really fascinating one, and I think Community does it fairly well. The development of the characters has been slow, because absurd characters are resistant to realistic development; they bounce back into their absurdity without a second thought, and that's a lot of what happens in this show. Their development happens absurdly, where it isn't expected, where it shouldn't happen, because they don't function like real people -- and I think that's why their development has been so subtle and so slow and appears so often in moments people miss. If you're waiting for one of the characters to have a realistic epiphany that changes their identity for the better and improves the dynamic of the Study Group, it's simply not going to happen with these characters, and that's part of the point. Because Community isn't just about experimenting with form, genre, and symbology -- it's about experimenting with the concept of narrative itself.

Experimental works have a tendency to fail when they address a mass audience, and I think Community has the same tendency. And, like I said, I do think that's a failure of the show. It tries to work on all of these levels at once, but it misses its analytic but not experimentally inclined audience. And it really needs to work on that, particularly in this season, as I think they're floundering for that core audience. But that also doesn't mean that it's failing on every level, as people assume.

I defended the show yesterday by saying that Dan Harmon loves television and that's part of the problem -- and I think it's true, but not in the way people took it. I think experimentation is born out of love, and I think that's the source of the failure of the show on this level. He and the writers of Community love television as a form so much that they forget that television is limited as a medium, through its need for mass appeal. Community would do much better on a network like HBO, where mass appeal isn't as much of an issue, but as it is they need to correct themselves and find a balance between this theoretical experimentation and a linear narrative. I certainly don't think they should give up the experimentation of narrative, because that's a big part of what makes the show remarkable, but I do think they need to better accommodate their entire audience.