Food for thought

[next_to_normal]

I stumbled across this transcript of a keynote speech by Hart Hanson (aka the creator of Bones), and I thought he had some very interesting things to say. Some of them I agree with, some of them I don't (namely this: "My entire audience wants them [Booth and Bones] to get together." Um, not all of us, punk. Personally, I think you're killing the show by forcing UST where there isn't any).

One potentially controversial statement: "...without exception I’ve never seen anything on TV that rivaled a good novel." Which, on the one hand, is probably true, given that novels and TV are two very different types of storytelling (finite vs. infinite, standalone vs. episodic). But it also sounds very much like that "TV isn't art/literature because it's pop culture and pop culture gets no respect" mentality that really bothers me. As BtVS fans, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there are TV shows out there with just as much depth and quality storytelling as a good novel.

He seems to suggest that writing for TV means writing for an audience, whereas writing a novel means writing for yourself. Which is all well and good, as long as you don't ever plan to sell your novel and make money from it. If you want to do that, well, you're probably going to have to take the audience into consideration. I think - again - he simply denigrates TV when he should be looking at both TV and novels as falling into two categories: those designed for mass market (pulp novels, TV shows like Bones, CSI, or American Idol) and those intended to be art (literary novels, TV shows like Mad Men). Every professional writer wants to attract an audience, no matter what type of writing they do.

Anyway, a lot of it is talking about how to be successful writing for a mass audience, and the answer seems to be, "Write about things that appeal to a large number of people, but don't pander," which is probably much easier said than done. This quote in particular stood out to me: "But if you cleave to, if you support – as an entertainer – the basic values of your culture and society, you have a much better chance of reaching a mass audience than if you challenge the mores and morals of a society." And I couldn't help but immediately think of Dollhouse. But you know what, Hart? For all the problems (and they were legion) that Dollhouse had, I'd still rather have that on my television than Bones, ten times over. Guess TV aimed at a mass audience just doesn't appeal to me.

I have to admit, I was pretty confused about the whole "redemption of Sweets" section. Did I miss the part where Sweets needed to be redeemed? 'Cause I kind of loved him from the beginning.

Oh, but then there's this: "And America is anti-intellectual, in a way. I find… it’s very anti-intellectual. They tend to… if I hear one more person say, “He’s a president you can have a beer with!” Jesus Christ! I don’t want him to have a beer; I want him to make me feel stupid." WORD.

Comments

[shapinglight]

For all the problems (and there were legion) that Dollhouse had, I'd still rather have that on my television than Bones, ten times over. Guess TV aimed at a mass audience just doesn't appeal to me.

Same here. I did get through one solitary episode of Bones, but it was a near thing that I didn't die of boredom. Dollhouse hasn't bored me once.

Made me go, WTF a few times and roll my eyes, but never bored me.

[next_to_normal]

It may depend somewhat on when you watched - I did enjoy the first few seasons of Bones, whereas the last two have been rather disappointing. But overall, yeah, I will take a niche show over a mass-appeal procedural any day. The shows I love best are always the ones with the lowest ratings.

[shinybaum.livejournal.com]

Two seasons behind on Bones but I did love Sweets, what did he do wrong?

[next_to_normal]

I have no idea. According to Hanson, "The audience didn’t like him because he was snooty and over-educated and distant from his feelings." And then later, "part of the anger is that the audience really wants those two together, wants Brennan and Booth together, and Sweets was saying, 'No, no, you can’t do it because you can’t trust your feelings.'"

Honestly? I never had a problem with the first thing. The second thing, I can't bring myself to care because I don't want Booth/Brennan together anyway.

[shinybaum.livejournal.com]

That was why I liked him! OMg. Nerds rock.

[shinybaum.livejournal.com]

I would kill for a tv show that didn't feel the need to pair people off. KILL. A decent friendship between people of the opposite sex, where both are straight, unattached and have no interest in each other. Not even subtextually.

[next_to_normal]

ME TOO. I don't understand why people on TV can't just be friends anymore. That's what I loved about Booth and Bones - they seemed like a really great friendship, almost like family to each other - and they went and ruined it by forcing all this sexual tension on them. *pouts*

[deird1]

I really really want to come up with a wonderfully detailed comment on this post, because awesome posts deserve awesome comments, but really I have nothing more detailed to say than this:

WORD.

[next_to_normal]

Hee! That'll do. :)

[ayinhara.livejournal.com]

I prefer Bones and Booth as friendly colleagues. I don't think the characters have enough in common (beyond the common workplace) for anything else.

[next_to_normal]

Yeah, I always saw them as better friends than relationship material.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

My only problem with Bones is I can never get through an episode without bringing up Willow's fish. My roommates are used to it. "Oh, yes, he's a charming special agent, but that doesn't change the fact that he killed Willow's fish!" Because that is the biggest crime ever committed in the Buffyverse. So big it carries over onto other shows.


I'm taking a class in dystopian literature right now, and we got to talking about how disparaging Fahrenheit 451 is about television. I'm an English major planning on getting a MFA in TV writing, so of course I felt a little put out by the constant inference that books are sacrosanct and TV has none of the literary merit of novels. However, there is a character who states that television could have literary merit if it sought to that level of depth. That got me wondering: has Hart Hanson given up? Did he ever try to make television that aspires to be art?

[next_to_normal]

Because that is the biggest crime ever committed in the Buffyverse.

...Really? (I can't tell if you're joking or serious, lol.)

That got me wondering: has Hart Hanson given up? Did he ever try to make television that aspires to be art?

I can't say, since I've never seen anything he's done other than Bones. He does have a point - you can't make a lot of money by writing television that aspires to be art. You make money by writing CSI. So you get some people, like Joss Whedon, who write whatever they want and don't care if only 12 people are watching. Then there are others who try to write the show that's going to be the most popular, even if it's crap. I wouldn't go so far as to call Hanson a sellout, but I'd say he falls closer to the latter camp than the former.