for the ladies that watch sex and the city

[starcapone]

which character reminds u of yourself/have similiar traits with?? i have a lil' bit of carrie + samantha in me = great combo

------------------

GRAVITY is my bitch..don't let this he/she say otherwise!!!

[harley1]

Please please please do not try to identify urself with any of those characters. That is exactly the problem with what that show has become! It is fictitious and should remain that way! I get sick when I hear NYC people trying to identify, emulate, etc those characters. You don't hear people saying which one of The Sopranos am I like!! PLEASE!!!!

[rudeboyyouth]

Starcapone's original post had very little to do with "emulation" of the characters, so that response really has no validity in relation to the question. It is not abnormal or strange for one to identify with characters in a show that one watches; it helps with the understanding of the show, and the dillemas that the characters face. Candace Bushnell's book was about realistic situations that people do go through. The show takes an original perspective on three women in manhattan who are succesful, intelligent, and at their sexual peak. That is not too difficult for many women to identify with. Some of the sitautions they face may be off the wall, that is why the show is a form of entertainment. However, as far as personality traits go, it is not strange for one to identify those same traits within one's self. The characters are ineteresting, and very peculiar; just as many women who are intelligent, succesful, and able to have the luxury of being independent and free with their sexuality are.

The question was a very good one, Starcapone.

------------------

"I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

[starcapone]

Originally posted by rudeboyyouth:

Starcapone's original post had very little to do with "emulation" of the characters, so that response really has no validity in relation to the question. It is not abnormal or strange for one to identify with characters in a show that one watches; it helps with the understanding of the show, and the dillemas that the characters face. Candace Bushnell's book was about realistic situations that people do go through. The show takes an original perspective on three women in manhattan who are succesful, intelligent, and at their sexual peak. That is not too difficult for many women to identify with. Some of the sitautions they face may be off the wall, that is why the show is a form of entertainment. However, as far as personality traits go, it is not strange for one to identify those same traits within one's self. The characters are ineteresting, and very peculiar; just as many women who are intelligent, succesful, and able to have the luxury of being independent and free with their sexuality are.

The question was a very good one, Starcapone.

thanx. i am no where near successful..yet.

------------------

GRAVITY is my bitch..don't let this he/she say otherwise!!!

[cmb1975]

Originally posted by harley1:

Please please please do not try to identify urself with any of those characters. That is exactly the problem with what that show has become! It is fictitious and should remain that way! I get sick when I hear NYC people trying to identify, emulate, etc those characters. You don't hear people saying which one of The Sopranos am I like!! PLEASE!!!!

I think there is a bit of a difference between comparing yourself to a fictional character that has trouble finding a stable relationship and comparing yourself to a mob boss, hitman, etc...

------------------

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.

[harley1]

And the metamorphisis begins...

[rudeboyyouth]

One shouldn't have to feel insulted for posing a question in regards to something they've watched. Harley, your commentary on Starcapone's original question is a generalization, and a weak one at that. It has no real bearing on the original question. The question was not meant to be taken as a "precursor for emulation." Any individual who wishes to thoroughly understand an art form (whether it be theatre/television/film/etc) must identify with and relate one's self to the character that is being observed. The relation of the self to the art form is the most direct and clear account (aesthetcially speaking), and more importantly, it is used as the most honest measuring stick of one's accuracy regarding the character one is analyzing. When asked on an a reflective essay whether or not one see another's characteristics within one's self, the goal is not to detect whether or not one wishes to emulate that character, but to simply detect whether or not one has a wholesome understanding of the character's life/perspective/mindset/reactions, etc. It is not as one dimensional as the emulation that you suggested. The fact that Starcapone is female adds more credibility to her question; it shows a wholesome internalization of the show. Asking other's if they can detect something within themselves from the characters on the show is not a question that should be picked apart in a half-assed psychoanalytic manner.

I find it strange that an individual can not ask a question without feeling as if he or she is asking something ludicrous. Save the long winded analyzation-of-the-question for something worthy of such dissection. It's a question on a viewer's part regarding something she is watching. You seem to understand that, but if you want to seem logical, you would leave it at that.

------------------

"I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

[This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-04-2001).]

[starcapone]

Originally posted by rudeboyyouth:

One shouldn't have to feel insulted for posing a question in regards to something they've watched. Harley, your commentary on Starcapone's original question is a generalization, and a weak one at that. It has no real bearing on the original question. The question was not meant to be taken as a "precursor for emulation." Any individual who wishes to thoroughly understand an art form (whether it be theatre/television/film/etc) must identify with and relate one's self to the character that is being observed. The relation of the self to the art form is the most direct and clear account (aesthetcially speaking), and more importantly, it is used as the most honest measuring stick of one's accuracy regarding the character one is analyzing. When asked on an a reflective essay whether or not one see another's characteristics within one's self, the goal is not to detect whether or not one wishes to emulate that character, but to simply detect whether or not one has a wholesome understanding of the character's life/perspective/mindset/reactions, etc. It is not as one dimensional as the emulation that you suggested. The fact that Starcapone is female adds more credibility to her question; it shows a wholesome internalization of the show. Asking other's if they can detect something within themselves from the characters on the show is not a question that should be picked apart in a half-assed psychoanalytic manner.

I find it strange that an individual can not ask a question without feeling as if he or she is asking something ludicrous. Save the long winded analyzation-of-the-question for something worthy of such dissection. It's a question on a viewer's part regarding something she is watching. You seem to understand that, but if you want to seem logical, you would leave it at that.

rudeboyyouth is officially my spokesperson. thank you.

harley my post did say for the ladies and if you couldn't relate to anyone on the show then why respond, just go to the next topic. i have noticed that when u do care to reply to my posts it's a negative response.

gosh, if i actually let people get to me...

------------------

GRAVITY is my bitch..don't let this he/she say otherwise!!!

[roadrunner]

Originally posted by rudeboyyouth:

Any individual who wishes to thoroughly understand an art form (whether it be theatre/television/film/etc) must identify with and relate one's self to the character that is being observed. The relation of the self to the art form is the most direct and clear account (aesthetcially speaking), and more importantly, it is used as the most honest measuring stick of one's accuracy regarding the character one is analyzing.

This is a load of horse shit. You're using big words and making no sense. How does a thorough understanding of the artform of film, for example (yours), rely on relating to a character observed? The medium is intrinsically different from the subject matter. Take , for example, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. You can watch the movie and not identify at all with the main character, but still understand the narrative conventions of filmmaking. Same goes for Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation, all classic films with dispicable subject matter. So in order to make an objective aesthetic judgement on the artistic quality of something, you actually have to divorce it from its context.

------------------

*i'm in love with the modern world*

[armada]

Originally posted by rudeboyyouth:

... Save the long winded analyzation-of-the-question for something worthy of such dissection...

I find this command ironic as part of this post.

[roadrunner]

Originally posted by armada:

I find this command ironic as part of this post.

I find your observation irrelevent to this discussion.

------------------

*i'm in love with the modern world*

[armada]

Originally posted by roadrunner:

I find your observation irrelevent to this discussion.

Chill dude. What are you attacking me for? I was lending credance to your statement that rudeboyyouth's oration was horse shit. I thought it was ironic that he would post all that crap and then make the statement that harley should "save the long winded analyzation-of-the-question" for something else, when he in fact gave some type of long-winded yapping post. What the fuck is your deal?

[starcapone]

hm armada how come u have zero posts?? i'm not being sarcastic, i'm serious...atleast that's what i see from this shitty computer

------------------

'nuff said

[armada]

Originally posted by starcapone:

hm armada how come u have zero posts?? i'm not being sarcastic, i'm serious...atleast that's what i see from this shitty computer

Yeah, that bugs me. I think if I start a thread, it shows how many I actually have, If I respond to one, it shows zero. Weird.

[This message has been edited by armada (edited 06-04-2001).]

[starcapone]

Originally posted by armada:

Originally posted by starcapone:

hm armada how come u have zero posts?? i'm not being sarcastic, i'm serious...atleast that's what i see from this shitty computer

Yeah, that bugs me. I think if I start a thread, it shows how many I actually have, If I respond to one, it shows zero. Weird.

[This message has been edited by armada (edited 06-04-2001).]

try to see if u can fix that, if u haven't already or if u care to. i tried asking for help on here, but thank gosh i wasn't holding my breath. hopefully u get that takin' care of hun

------------------

'nuff said

[roadrunner]

Originally posted by armada:

Chill dude. What are you attacking me for? I was lending credance to your statement that rudeboyyouth's oration was horse shit. I thought it was ironic that he would post all that crap and then make the statement that harley should "save the long winded analyzation-of-the-question" for something else, when he in fact gave some type of long-winded yapping post. What the fuck is your deal?

Sorry, I'm a little stressed out today. Yeah, none of this is really worth analyzing, but once it starts...

------------------

*i'm in love with the modern world*

[rudeboyyouth]

It wasn't a command, but I do find it flattering that you would consider it as such. The vocabulary on the other hand was far from fancy, and I am again flattered that you would consider to be such.

And as for your commentary, it's half assed. You might want to think it through before you write again. I never mentioned giving an "Objective" viewpoint of the subject matter. Starcapone's question clearly depicted an identification with the characters on a personal level. As such, it is not only necessary, but vital for one to relate one's self to the material being discussed. As I also suggested, in a relfective essay when one is being asked to relate one's self to a character, it doesn't suggest emulation. The original question does not suggest objectivity, it suggests subjectivity.

There is no need for decoartive diction in order to sound intelligent, just a need for a meaningful statement. In Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer, one doesn't need to relate Henry to one's self. However, if one were watching a film and trying to figure out exactly how the character could get to the point of murdering another individual, etc, one would need to look within one's self and place one's self in the situation. One may watch the film, sum up the events of the killer, and try to explain the emotional state objectively. That is nothing more than a response, and it hardly requires thouhght. One can give an account of a film by watching it objectively; that is a given, and it doesn't require any real thought or reflection. One may understand what the dillema is that one may be facing, but they can not truly appreciate the hardship involved in that dillema until relating one's self to the actual individual, the type of individual, the situation, etc.

Watching a film and understanding the beauty and "birth of a nation" does not require any internalization of the subject matter, you're right about that. However, if one wished to understand the plight of one individual within that society, one would need to think of what it must feel like to lose one's family, etc. I am not speaking of an objective response. If you read the post carefully, I speak of a THOROUGH appreciation, which includes internalization on many levels. Writing from an objective standpoint doesn't require much, and many individuals can hide behind objectivity in order to safeguard themselves against humiliation. The one's who immerse themselves in the work to some degree, and attempt to plow through the emotions faced by the character, deserve more respect. Many writers of the past, such as Frederick Douglas for instance, have written the most beautiful work from an objective standpoint while stuck in turmoil; but if a closer look is taken at the work, the objectivity is nothing more than an attempt to separate one's self from the one's surroundings because it is too difficult to deal with at the moment. And more importantly, the internalization of the situation has already taken place, thus, the objective standpoint can be taken. One dimensional appreciation of art requires nothing more than objectivity, but a thorough understanding of it, as I have stated before, requires far more. One can accurately sum up the plight of a character and sound as if they understand, but it is nothing worthy of respect. If one can relate one's self to the art form and perhaps even try to write from the perspective of one of the characters, that would very beautiful. Because not only does it require a bullshit one dimensional perspective of the entire situation, but a personal internalization of the subject matter and the effects. The power of the writing/response is made all the more powerful, as a result.

------------------

"I hate explanations that are explanatory of something already explained. (Abraham Lincoln)"

[This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-04-2001).]

[harley1]

Uhhh, yeah, right! You should be proud of your skills.

[armada]

Originally posted by rudeboyyouth:

It wasn't a command, but I do find it flattering that you would consider it as such. The vocabulary on the other hand was far from fancy, and I am again flattered that you would consider to be such.

And as for your commentary, it's half assed. You might want to think it through before you write again. I never mentioned giving an "Objective" viewpoint of the subject matter. Starcapone's question clearly depicted an identification with the characters on a personal level. As such, it is not only necessary, but vital for one to relate one's self to the material being discussed. As I also suggested, in a relfective essay when one is being asked to relate one's self to a character, it doesn't suggest emulation. The original question does not suggest objectivity, it suggests subjectivity.

There is no need for decoartive diction in order to sound intelligent, just a need for a meaningful statement. In Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer, one doesn't need to relate Henry to one's self. However, if one were watching a film and trying to figure out exactly how the character could get to the point of murdering another individual, etc, one would need to look within one's self and place one's self in the situation. One may watch the film, sum up the events of the killer, and try to explain the emotional state objectively. That is nothing more than a response, and it hardly requires thouhght. One can give an account of a film by watching it objectively; that is a given, and it doesn't require any real thought or reflection. One may understand what the dillema is that one may be facing, but they can not truly appreciate the hardship involved in that dillema until relating one's self to the actual individual, the type of individual, the situation, etc.

Watching a film and understanding the beauty and "birth of a nation" does not require any internalization of the subject matter, you're right about that. However, if one wished to understand the plight of one individual within that society, one would need to think of what it must feel like to lose one's family, etc. I am not speaking of an objective response. If you read the post carefully, I speak of a THOROUGH appreciation, which includes internalization on many levels. Writing from an objective standpoint doesn't require much, and many individuals can hide behind objectivity in order to safeguard themselves against humiliation. The one's who immerse themselves in the work to some degree, and attempt to plow through the emotions faced by the character, deserve more respect. Many writers of the past, such as Frederick Douglas for instance, have written the most beautiful work from an objective standpoint while stuck in turmoil; but if a closer look is taken at the work, the objectivity is nothing more than an attempt to separate one's self from the one's surroundings because it is too difficult to deal with at the moment. And more importantly, the internalization of the situation has already taken place, thus, the objective standpoint can be taken. One dimensional appreciation of art requires nothing more than objectivity, but a thorough understanding of it, as I have stated before, requires far more. One can accurately sum up the plight of a character and sound as if they understand, but it is nothing worthy of respect. If one can relate one's self to the art form and perhaps even try to write from the perspective of one of the characters, that would very beautiful. Because not only does it require a bullshit one dimensional perspective of the entire situation, but a personal internalization of the subject matter and the effects. The power of the writing/response is made all the more powerful, as a result.

Hmmm...

[rudeboyyouth]

I don't consider them to be skills. Mostly common sense.

Thanks anyway.

[This message has been edited by rudeboyyouth (edited 06-04-2001).]

[harley1]

Originally posted by rudeboyyouth:

Starcapone's original post had very little to do with "emulation" of the characters, so that response really has no validity in relation to the question. It is not abnormal or strange for one to identify with characters in a show that one watches; it helps with the understanding of the show, and the dillemas that the characters face. Candace Bushnell's book was about realistic situations that people do go through. The show takes an original perspective on three women in manhattan who are succesful, intelligent, and at their sexual peak. That is not too difficult for many women to identify with. Some of the sitautions they face may be off the wall, that is why the show is a form of entertainment. However, as far as personality traits go, it is not strange for one to identify those same traits within one's self. The characters are ineteresting, and very peculiar; just as many women who are intelligent, succesful, and able to have the luxury of being independent and free with their sexuality are.

The question was a very good one, Starcapone.

You are correct that the original question did not mention emulation so I may have jumped the gun as this is a sensitive topic. However, which one do you identify with or who's traits do you have is a definite precursor to who do you want to emulate. People will find characteristics they identify with or more destructively, want to identify with and creat a self fulfilling prophecy situation. It is a venue that people use to perpetuate their perception of the NY scene and then attempt to live it. I can't wait until a large portion of NYC women start to talk about Depressed Vagina Syndrome!! Trust me, the perspective of this post definitley lends itself to that.

The statement that comparing oneself or identifying with characters on that show is different than on The Sopranos illustrates my point exactly. Both shows should be viewed with same mentality but they obviously are not. Danger in this narrow view!

[starcapone]

Originally posted by harley1:

You are correct that the original question did not mention emulation so I may have jumped the gun as this is a sensitive topic. However, which one do you identify with or who's traits do you have is a definite precursor to who do you want to emulate. People will find characteristics they identify with or more destructively, want to identify with and creat a self fulfilling prophecy situation. It is a venue that people use to perpetuate their perception of the NY scene and then attempt to live it. I can't wait until a large portion of NYC women start to talk about Depressed Vagina Syndrome!! Trust me, the perspective of this post definitley lends itself to that.

The statement that comparing oneself or identifying with characters on that show is different than on The Sopranos illustrates my point exactly. Both shows should be viewed with same mentality but they obviously are not. Danger in this narrow view!

stfu cuz your a dick and i don't wanna "hear" u anymore.

------------------

GRAVITY is my bitch..don't let this he/she say otherwise!!!

[harley1]

Now, I don't think Carrie or anyone else on the show would say something like that. At least have an intelligent response.

[ReginaP]

Originally posted by harley1:

I can't wait until a large portion of NYC women start to talk about Depressed Vagina Syndrome!!

Now that is hilarious.

However, Star wasn't asking "Which character would you want to be?" She's asking which do people already identify with. It's a lot easier for people to find similarities with women who shop, go out, go on dates, and get together for talks than to compare oneself with a hitman. I can't see how saying, "Oh, I'm a writer and so is Carrie" would lead to, "I want to be a hitman like that guy on the Sopranos."

On another note, so far I like the first few seasons better than this one! These episodes, although they ended on good notes, had too many depressing scenes. Esp. Charlotte

------------------

=)

reginadp121@aol.com

[starcapone]

Originally posted by harley1:

Now, I don't think Carrie or anyone else on the show would say something like that. At least have an intelligent response.

obviously u don't watch the show much or do u. i'm sure samantha would have said that!!

------------------

GRAVITY is my bitch..don't let this he/she say otherwise!!!