Jump to content

Famous Female Characters in Literature


Randomizer

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: Slarty
Disclaimer: I haven't watched Bones in years.

...

*facepalm*

Originally Posted By: Kreador
but I do not believe that they've actually gotten married yet.

Oh, right, they aren't married, they just live together.

Huh. Dikiyoba didn't realize Emily Deschanel was pregnant in RL (not by David Boreanaz). That makes the writing make a tiny bit more sense (given that the writing for the past few seasons has been random and awful).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
...that is unfortunate.

If you think that's unfortunate, you'd really hate the birth episode where she goes into labor while they're out on a case, can't make it to a doctor, stop at an inn, are told there's no room, so she gives birth in the manger, and they name the kid Christine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
I am confused by this juxtaposition.

The *facepalm* is a response to Slarty because he keeps talking about a show he doesn't even watch and makes assumptions about it that are no longer true.

The rest of my post is a response to Kreador and has nothing to do with my response to Slarty.

---

Originally Posted By: Kreador
If you think that's unfortunate, you'd really hate the birth episode where she goes into labor while they're out on a case, can't make it to a doctor, stop at an inn, are told there's no room, so she gives birth in the manger, and they name the kid Christine.

The part where she jumped into the middle of a prison riot and relied on her unborn baby to protect her while Booth got the snot beaten out of him was pretty sweet, though, if only because Booth doesn't get beaten up nearly enough.

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Slarty was pretty clear that he was talking about the source novels, not the way the television series has altered the characters. While Kathy Reichs' name remains in the credits as an executive producer, that's almost certainly for the financial remuneration. I'd be willing to bet that she has no active role in the writing or development of the series at this point. Film and television characters developed from novels almost always develop in a very different direction from the source material. Some of that is the structure of writing for a continuing series of relatively short stories (a teleplay is about 47 pages as opposed to the three hundred plus pages of an average mystery novel). Some of that is the pressure of appealing to an often significantly different audience (there are probably a few hundred thousand, maybe a couple million, regular readers of the novels; there are 10-20 million regular viewers of the television series).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the novels. Actually, I didn't know there were any.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
The *facepalm* is a response to Slarty because he keeps talking about a show he doesn't even watch and makes assumptions about it that are no longer true.

1) I used to watch it, and "haven't seen it in years" was a slight overstatement; what I meant was that I haven't followed it in years. I'm plenty familiar with the title character, which is what's relevant to the main topic of the thread. Or are you suggesting that we should only discuss a character if we've read/watched the entire corpus of works they've been in? In that case, hands off Arwen and Scheherazade for pretty much everyone here.

 

2) What assumptions was I even making? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
I haven't read the novels. Actually, I didn't know there were any.

Then I misunderstood, and you wouldn't have gotten the joke in the series that Brennan writes novels about a character named Kathy Reichs (who in real life is a forensic anthropologist as well as an author).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a little tenuous to call Reichs' book the source novels. The character shares a name and profession, but is younger, lives elsewhere, and is otherwise somewhat different in appearance and personality. Also, there's no Booth in the novel's I've read.

 

As for in jokes, my favorite is in the first episode. Booth: "You know, you’re not the only forensic anthropologist in town." Brennan: "Yes I am. The next nearest is in Montreal. Parlez-vous francais?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Slarty
...what I meant was that I haven't followed it in years. I'm plenty familiar with the title character, which is what's relevant to the main topic of the thread. Or are you suggesting that we should only discuss a character if we've read/watched the entire corpus of works they've been in?

What I've been trying to imply is that the past few seasons (ie, beginning at the end of the fourth season and really ramping up at the end of the sixth season and all throughout the seventh) have seen Dr. Brennan's personality change so drastically she's not really the same person any more. And all those changes--deciding she wants children, then falling hopelessly in love with Booth, then being stupid enough to have sex without protection, then deciding to keep the baby and then buying a house so she and Booth can live together--have made her less counterculture and more this-is-what-American-society-expects-of-a-woman. So yeah, unless you specifically want to talk about Dr. Brenann in the early seasons, before the character derailment, you have to know at least a little bit--like an episode or two--about what's going on in the seventh season after she's been "normalized".

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, you could have just explained that, instead of making a snarky comment. Title characters do not usually experience "personality change so drastically [they're] not really the same person any more," so I'm still not sure what the problem was here. I mentioned her as an offhand example, and asked questions when it became clear there was more to know. What's the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
Lisbeth Salander's recognizable in at least two languages (I only saw the original).


As for Botwin... she doesn't strike me as a terribly strong character, at least in the first season. Like Harry Potter (who I'm not a big fan of as a hero), her success is largely due to the support of secondary characters, who receive little credit from the protagonist.

As for Pippi... if we're counting her, that opens the door for Matilda and Madeline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Slarty
What's the issue?

Because you acted all authoritative on a subject (the later seasons of Bones) it turned out you knew little about. The questions you asked implied that you were skeptical of the things I (and then Kreador (and then Lilith)) was talking about which seems to mean you automatically assumed I was wrong about them. You did not ask me to clarify what I was talking about and, based on the early questions you asked, you apparently didn't even do a cursory Google/Wiki search. So yeah, I was snarky.

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Counterexamples: ..., Bones, ...

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Not the show, the character. She is obstinately cynical and dissects contemporary culture as much as dead bodies.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Disclaimer: I haven't watched Bones in years. She's married with children and a house? Not married to Angel, I hope...

This is what you facepalmed. Where, exactly, am I acting "all authoritative" about Bones? The part where I explicitly stated my lack of authoritativeness? I brought up the character, wrote one sentence about her personality in order to clarify why I had originally brought her up, mentioned the fact that I wasn't up to date on the show, and asked a question. Sheesh.

Originally Posted By: Kreador
In the show, Bones and Booth have a kid and live together, but I do not believe that they've actually gotten married yet. If so, it must have been off screen.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Booth had a kid already. Are you sure it's not that kid?

Or maybe you meant this part, which came later? Kreador wasn't sure whether or not they were really married, either. I'd already stated that I hadn't seen most of the recent episodes. I'm not allowed to discuss where things might have gone?

*shakes head sadly*

EDIT:
Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
The questions you asked implied that you were skeptical of the things I (and then Kreador (and then Lilith)) was talking about

I never even asked a question about anything Lilith said! What's with the witch hunt? Geez.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
This is what you facepalmed. Where, exactly, am I acting "all authoritative" about Bones?


To me it was the "Are you sure it's not that kid?" bit that came off as a little condescending and dismissive. If you'd seen any of the latest season at all, you'd know that yes, we're sure it's not that kid, because an entire season of the show was written around her pregnancy to Booth. I don't think it's too much to ask you to do a tiny bit of research before questioning whether other people have their facts right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus christ, guys. It was a question. I'd already stated I didn't know what was going on. If you want to say "don't participate in a conversation before you google everything involved," that's your prerogative I suppose, but how an ignorant question can be condescending and dismissive is beyond me.

 

IMHO, y'all are being a bit more sensitive about how other people phrase things than most everyone else here is.

 

*shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Jesus christ, guys. It was a question. I'd already stated I didn't know what was going on. If you want to say "don't participate in a conversation before you google everything involved," that's your prerogative I suppose, but how an ignorant question can be condescending and dismissive is beyond me.

IMHO, y'all are being a bit more sensitive about how other people phrase things than most everyone else here is.

*shrug*


You're playing the "you're just too sensitive" card? Really? In this discussion? Seriously, dude, take a step back and think about how you're coming across.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
You're playing the "you're just too sensitive" card? Really? In this discussion? Seriously, dude, take a step back and think about how you're coming across.


Beaten to the punch somewhat, but this.

I'm pretty loathe to trample toes on a thread I'm not active in, but I think everybody needs to take a step back and think about what they're saying. These gender threads are caustic enough as it is, what with the general lack of thoughtfulness some people are putting into their posts, and the ignorance others are showing for the feelings of others. There's no need for anybody to have spitting matches; we're all intelligent people here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
You're playing the "you're just too sensitive" card? Really? In this discussion? Seriously, dude, take a step back and think about how you're coming across.

I don't think any of us are looking that great right now.

Degree of sensitivity isn't a card. It's always an issue in communication. At what point is it the responsibility of the speaker to speak in a way that feels respectful to others, and at what point is it the responsibility of the listener to try and understand what the speaker meant and give the benefit of the doubt? The truth is somewhere in the middle. Where it is, exactly, has a lot to do with culture and personality. But it's a very reasonable thing to look at, when there is an issue like this. Suggesting that doing so is like playing a card, is rejecting the issue out of hand using manipulative rhetoric.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more you say, the less inclined I am to give you any benefit of the doubt in this conversation, because now I really do think you're consciously dismissing and devaluing others' feelings. When you offend someone, the mature response is not to get defensive and then say "stop being so sensitive" when called out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, for what it's worth, I don't think anybody is looking too great in any of these threads at the moment; instead of weighing up posts before clicking submit, people are swinging words about as if they were clubs - they're getting their point across, ish, but they're trashing the place as they do so.

 

I'm going to bow out, as I'd really rather not be accused of taking sides, or denying anybody the chance to be dickish to one another, but really, my whole thing on these threads is that they're about important topics, that need to be discussed, but if people aren't gonna do it civilly, or thoughtfully, then we really shouldn't be having them.

 

(Blah, sniped, again. Shoot me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
The more you say, the less inclined I am to give you any benefit of the doubt in this conversation, because now I really do think you're consciously dismissing and devaluing others' feelings. When you offend someone, the mature response is not to get defensive and then say "stop being so sensitive" when called out on it.

I'm sorry you that that's what you feel I'm doing. It isn't my intention, nor do I believe it's what I'm actually doing. I'm also sorry you feel the need to lecture me about how to behave maturely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...