I have tried many times to compose a reply to this thread, but it’s difficult. I have lots of thoughts crossing my mind. The first thought is of course that what I read in the past posts is beautiful and consistent, and you know how much I admire consistency. The second is that it does not sound “right” to me. From a very general point of view, I guess it’s because such approach puts V and C in a “special” category, which is not close to me enough to be inspiring. You also know how much I like the symbolical meaning of “everything” in this show, but it is a symbolism that I can use myself, for my human growth. The growth of a human being who perceives and wants to feed in tales telling that life is much more than what you have “inside” or “outside”, and “that truth is love”.
The approach outlined in these posts places the lovers in a mythical position, which is absolutely okay and one that respects and founds the whole development of the series, even more consistently than what the writers did. But doing so, it places them also too far from us, from me. Catherine is a flawed character which finds her redemption drawing Vincent back from death. Vincent is a flawed character which is made “man” by the sublime and terrible acceptance of his mate. Now, I love those flawed characters and I love precisely that they are flawed, what I don’t love is that in that fated approach, they find their closure, and become something other. And Vincent becomes comfortable with himself and his dangerous side, his focus becoming something else, the Above being only a place of anger and evil. And especially, Catherine becomes “disposable”. Her parable is completed, and she sacrifices herself until the supreme sacrifice. That done, we can honor her and move on, a stepping stone. Apart being not fair, fairness being a whole important chapter in my approach, in such trajectory she is not inspiring. Or not in a way I like. And it’s no wonder, Zara, that you also prefer Diana, who is much more “real” and inspiring. Which I very well understand, given these premises.
Yes. This is a great danger of dancing with archetypes, as I like to do. I would very much like to hear more about your important chapter of fairness, because I see already how building an interpretation closer to our Everyday Hearts than to Distant Myth...requires fairness to nurture hope.
I will say that my greatest problem with Catherine as a character, our primary rendering of the Beauty from folklore, is that not only is she constructed as a Damsel-in-Distress, but a Damsel-Who-Frequently-Concocts-Her-Own Distress. I credit all of my personal affinity for Catherine as a character to the superior and humanizing dramatic talents of the actress, Linda Hamilton. The storytellers *had* to make Diana be a different version of Beauty who is unlike Catherine, and so while Diana faces similar dangers, the "damselness" is absent. Diana, as her name implies, is a Huntress in my typology. She fits perfectly into the new tale being told in the third season of the show.
Sobi wrote:Yes, to do it I must make an arbitrary decision, as it’s not what the series show. But I feel entitled to do it, because, as I have said many times, this is just entertainment.
The daydreaming and decision-making are essential acts of creativity. It is how we discover and share meaning in life, from many sources, entertainment included. I am glad you feel entitled, for you are.
Sobi wrote:When I was completely and horribly crushed by the 3S, one of the reasons why it happened is that the story appealed to these religious and symbolic undercurrents, but then it left me alone to cope with my killed hope, as… it’s just a TV show. Powerful enough to make me fly, but not enough to raise me up when I’m broken.
A while ago, I was watching con videos on YouTube and a comment Roy Dotrice offered really resonated. He essentially said of The Powers That Be, "People were depending upon this story for hope and truth and beauty in their lives. How dare they take that away from us?" It is an ancient problem: the battle between Patrons and Artists. Today, it is manifested in the battle between Publishers and Content Providers, and B&B was a casualty of the war...and so many fans' heartbreak with it. I am saddened and aggravated to know that this happened, and continues to happen with other worthy stories that bring less profit to the Patrons even as they foster greater humanity in the Audience.
Pat wrote:Zara is the mythical expert here...
Try Zara = She-Who-Loves-to-Share-All-the-Neat-Stuff-She-Discovers-Via-Topical-Fascinations. I don't feel I'm an expert, only an amateur who spends a lot of time pondering notions that catch my attention.
Pat wrote:I would have been interested to see George RR Martin's original plan. He wanted to explore the costs of Vincent's violence, a coming to grips with that side of himself, and keep in it the coming together through love that Catherine's pulling him back to her provides. Then I could hope that the adult relationship aspect might have come into the show more and get the story I would have liked.
His original plan would be great to see. However, my impression regarding Martin's take of Vincent is that Martin wanted to tip our Beast more deeply into the Monster/Werelion/Beastial domain than Koslow ever permitted. Don't get me wrong; Martin's are my favorite episodes in the series, and I'm convinced the other writers should have given much more credence to their resident fantasy/horror/sci-fi-genres novelist. But Martin's emphasis on Beauty pulling Beast out of violence does not cohere with Koslow's vision of Vincent's character, which gave us an integrated Beast who serves as a guide for Beauty, showing her what is truly beautiful in life and love.
I am now wondering, as I write this, whether a significant portion of the disconnection between the majority of the show and the Dark Turn is actually rooted in the imbalance between Koslow's whole and hale Beast...and Martin's dualistic and fragmenting Beast. I know, I know, I am oversimplifying the interconnected aspects of the writer/producer team. But for the sake of discussion, these seem to be the two most prominent visions of the character and the way he balances himself. (Setting aside the external demands for cops-and-robbers/Hulkcent scripts, which the storytellers collectively did their darnedest to resist.)