I definitely agree with all this. I just don't understand the people who act like Preston came across as some super-competent / brilliant agent in the book. She didn't do any detective work at all!onemoreshadow wrote:Not trollish at all. I guess my disconnect comes from the fact that we don't know enough about Preston yet to really make an impression. So maybe I'm being a bit premature in saying that there is a notable difference between Frost's Preston and Lynch's Preston. I feel like the impression we do have of her so far are mostly things we have been told about her ("she has the stuff"), or the way Cole and Albert view her (i.e., ogling her). Which of course isn't the character's fault. She hasn't really had her chance to shine yet. Like all things with The Return, I suspect there will be more of a payoff when the work is viewed as a whole.Mr. Reindeer wrote:A lot of people seem to feel this way (re: the disconnect between book TP and TV show Tammy), but I've yet to read an explanation as to why people felt she came across as competent in the book. Can you explain? (Hope this doesn't come across as trollish. I'm genuinely curious.)onemoreshadow wrote:I think the main issue for me with the character, besides Bell's questionable acting skills, is that despite Cole's assurances to Denise that Tammy "has the stuff," we haven't actually seen it for ourselves yet. So far she's just been this pouty person trailing Cole and Albert around with her slinky runway model walk. I'm holding out hope that there's a reason she's working with them on this case (presumably she notices something in the fingerprints that will showcase her skills). Definitely feel a bit of a disconnect between the Preston we got (admittedly in small, footnote-y doses) in Frost's book and the one we're seeing now in the actual show.
Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne
- Mr. Reindeer
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:46 am
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
She verified a lot of things, and she made some snarky/meta remarks. No objectification though, that's a difference, it's from her point of view to a degree.
- Mr. Reindeer
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
See, I thought the snarky/meta remarks made her appear LESS professional, especially since she didn't contribute hardly anything else besides confirming everything Briggs wrote. But I guess it's a "your mileage may vary" kinda thing. I honestly just thought the double-narrator device was totally pointless and wished Mark hadn't used it given how little it added to the experience.4815162342 wrote:She verified a lot of things, and she made some snarky/meta remarks. No objectification though, that's a difference, it's from her point of view to a degree.
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Did you need a shovel for that?sylvia_north wrote:I also agree DL has created a feminist body of work. The feminist essay "Lynching Women" in David Lavery's Full of Secrets: Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks and Martha Nochimson's books inspired me to get deep into critical theory as a hobby and later as an academic major.KillerBOB wrote:
And who are you to judge people, anyway? Someone who's never looked at a member the opposite sex (who you didn't know) and thought "damn", apparently.
- Hockey Mask
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
I think there is a blurred line between, in this instance, being degrading to women and telling the story you're trying to tell.
I think the degradation should be pointed out at the industry on a whole but not necessarily at a particular piece of work.
Take the movie Pink Floyd's The Wall for example. Is it degrading to women? I think so and I know many women that have been put off by it. But it has to be there in order to tell the story it is telling.
I think the degradation should be pointed out at the industry on a whole but not necessarily at a particular piece of work.
Take the movie Pink Floyd's The Wall for example. Is it degrading to women? I think so and I know many women that have been put off by it. But it has to be there in order to tell the story it is telling.
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:46 am
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Not necessarily more professional, just maybe a bit more intelligent and 100% less objectified. Your critique of the book is fair, I am not a fan at all.Mr. Reindeer wrote:See, I thought the snarky/meta remarks made her appear LESS professional, especially since she didn't contribute hardly anything else besides confirming everything Briggs wrote. But I guess it's a "your mileage may vary" kinda thing. I honestly just thought the double-narrator device was totally pointless and wished Mark hadn't used it given how little it added to the experience.4815162342 wrote:She verified a lot of things, and she made some snarky/meta remarks. No objectification though, that's a difference, it's from her point of view to a degree.
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
If somebody is offended by the treatment of anything in this series, and they keep watching, doesn't that make them part of the "problem," and not part of the "solution?"
Or, are they simply gravitating to an opportunity to get on a soapbox and call attention to themselves and their own "superior" positions/beliefs? (which is generally realized by telling others what is wrong with them)
Or, are they simply gravitating to an opportunity to get on a soapbox and call attention to themselves and their own "superior" positions/beliefs? (which is generally realized by telling others what is wrong with them)
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:46 am
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Ignoring problematic elements in art and life is not being part of the "solution", though it is easier.
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Well, I don't know much about art. Life is about 98% "problematic elements," so good luck trying to fix that. Paying to watch a show on Showtime that is offensive creates a profit motive for them to produce more of the same. If you really want it to go away, remove the profit motive. This is reality in the world that we have always lived in. Nobody will ever change that, no matter how much they use their golden shovel.4815162342 wrote:Ignoring problematic elements in art and life is not being part of the "solution", though it is easier.
- N. Needleman
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Engaging with them in their own contexts is not the same thing as ignoring them. We all process differently. I think Lynch's work is both fascinated with women and their sexuality and also often fundamentally feminist and fundamentally messy.
That it cannot be easily catalogued that way due to the violence and trauma he so often deals in - while affirming most of his central female characters and their experiences - only makes the conversation more complex. Nothing about it or his work is black and white.
That it cannot be easily catalogued that way due to the violence and trauma he so often deals in - while affirming most of his central female characters and their experiences - only makes the conversation more complex. Nothing about it or his work is black and white.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Re: RE: Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
Agreed. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I remember thinking she added almost zero insight (to the point where the whole structural device of her notes seemed somewhat pointless, other than the "verified" items letting us know what is true in the TP universe vs what may not be).Mr. Reindeer wrote: I just don't understand the people who act like Preston came across as some super-competent / brilliant agent in the book. She didn't do any detective work at all!
Granted, it's likely a fault in the whole setup of the book anyway, but I remember smirking about her spending time researching points along the way when she could have flagged items to come back to, kept reading, and found out who the Archivist was anyway. (I know there's probably more than meets the eye in terms of the dossier being tampered with, but I seem to recall her taking the Archivist revelation at face value.)
Anyway, long story short, I don't remember walking away thinking she seemed like some wildly insightful agent. (If anything, it kinda seemed like Cole was jerking her around since I thought there were hints in the book that he knew about some of the contents.) I'm intrigued by where they may take the character though since it seems like Frost and Lynch have tagged her as an important character.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
You and 4815162342 (can't I just say 'Lost Numbers'?) seem to be equating the mere act of lusting after someone with objectification. Unlike Albert, I didn't turn to a friend and say "I feel a lot better now"--I'm not defending that part of the scene--but I did enjoy looking at her backside. Because... I'm attracted to women. That has nothing to do with pop-Darwinism and isn't consistently contradicted in anthropology; show me when in history the sexes did not gaze at each other longingly!sylvia_north wrote:[quote[Yes we all objectify! There's no reason to celebrate it, tho,KillerBOB wrote:
And who are you to judge people, anyway? Someone who's never looked at a member the opposite sex (who you didn't know) and thought "damn", apparently.
As Lost Numbers pointed out, it becomes objectification if you have no interest in that being as a person, i.e. only viewing them as an object--which as I said before, isn't my case with Tamara Preston.
Edit: It's worth noting that I made only this post in response to something someone said earlier about feeling guilty about liking that shot. Unless you're actually objectifying someone (i.e. you have zero interest in/don't think of them as a person), I don't see what the deal is myself.
Could you be more smug and condescending? Whatever "certain kind of male fan" you think I am, I assure you I am not not.4815162342 wrote: Finally, reason! I'm not surprised Lynch attracts a certain kind of male fan
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
KillerBoB: why are you letting them drag you down into this? You stated your position eloquently, and it stands as the best post of this thread. Do a George Castanza and bow out on top!KillerBOB wrote: You and 4815162342 (can't I just say 'Lost Numbers'?) seem to be equating the mere act of lusting after someone with objectification. Unlike Albert, I didn't turn to a friend and say "I feel a lot better now"--I'm not defending that part of the scene--but I did enjoy looking at her backside. Because... I'm attracted to women. That has nothing to do with pop-Darwinism and isn't consistently contradicted in anthropology; show me when in history the sexes did not gaze at each other longingly!
As Lost Numbers pointed out, it becomes objectification if you have no interest in that being as a person, i.e. only viewing them as an object--which as I said before, isn't my case with Tamara Preston.
Edit: It's worth noting that I made only this post in response to something someone said earlier about feeling guilty about liking that shot. Unless you're actually objectifying someone (i.e. you have zero interest in/don't think of them as a person), I don't see what the deal is myself.
Could you be more smug and condescending? Whatever "certain kind of male fan" you think I am, I assure you I am not not.4815162342 wrote: Finally, reason! I'm not surprised Lynch attracts a certain kind of male fan
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
When you're right you're right!BigEd wrote: KillerBoB: why are you letting them drag you down into this? You stated your position eloquently, and it stands as the best post of this thread. Do a George Castanza and bow out on top!
Thanks, Ed.
Re: Tamara Preston - Chrysta Bell (Spoilers)
<insert Coop giving a thumbs up> (sorry, I don't have a link) How about a little help out there???....KillerBOB wrote:When you're right you're right!BigEd wrote: KillerBoB: why are you letting them drag you down into this? You stated your position eloquently, and it stands as the best post of this thread. Do a George Castanza and bow out on top!
Thanks, Ed.