« Fire Along the Sky, and other things | Main | intrigues literary and criminal »

August 12, 2005

dialogue | Deadwood | Sci Fi

I have been watching the first season of Deadwood on DVD, and finding all kinds of interesting bits to admire. This line of dialogue jumped out at me, as it did the first time I heard it:

I begrudge that pervert his capacity for happiness.

Ebfarnum This from the hotelier E.B. Farnum (played by William Sanderson), who provides a really excellent example of complex characterization. On the surface E.B. seems like nothing more than a weasel without any scruples, but there's a lot more to him. He's completely self aware and unapologetic, but more interesting: he's articulate in a stilted, sometimes funny but often strikingly on-target way, so that I find myself wondering what kind of family he came from. He must have had some education, and yet here he is in an outlaw town, nickel and diming himself to wealth, sleezy as Eddy Haskel, and twice as scruffy. In fact, I just realized: he reminds me of a less-than-successful Iago. Just as manipulative and scheming, but without the personal charm to really pull off a coup.

If I think about a secondary character this much, it means (to me) that the writers and actors have done an excellent job.

In case you're wondering, the man whose happiness he's begruding is a regular visitor to The Gem Saloon, a man with a fetish that has earned him the nickname the titlicker.

It's Friday evening, which means I put everything down except whatever bit of sewing I'm working on to sit in front of the television with my husband so we can watch the Sci-Fi channel. The three shows, in order: Battlestar Galactica, Stargate Atlantis, and Stargate SG1. Of these three, I'd have to say that Battlestar Galactica is the one that I like best for its storytelling and writing, although there isn't a single character that stands out for me above the others. I wish I could say that I liked Stargate SG1 as much, especially as Ben Browder of Farscape has joined the cast (permanently) and Claudia Black is there for the first five episodes or so... but. It's an established show with an established writing staff, and I'm just not a huge fan of the style or the premise, which often strikes me as having run its course. I love seeing Ben Browder in a new role, and I think he's doing a fantastic job with the material he's got -- but the material itself is lacking. On the other hand, early Farscape had some eps that didn't work, and that came around beautifully. So I'm giving SG1 every chance. And as others have pointed out to me so cleverly, it is actually good to see the actors whose work I followed so closely for four years in new roles that allow them to stretch in different directions. Although it does take some getting used to to have Claudia Browder as the flirty bad girl with an exhibitionist streak.

August 12, 2005 04:34 PM

Comments

"Deadwood" never aired here, but has just been released for sale on DVD - is it good enough to take the risk in buying it?

Posted by: Meredith at August 14, 2005 03:21 PM

Depends. I bought it, because I really like it -- but then I'm not put off by the language, and some people are. It's pretty rough, but then again the story, the acting, the production values -- first rate.

Posted by: sara at August 14, 2005 03:23 PM

Deadwood - here in NZ the first 2 series (are there any more?) have just finished airing back to back.
I really enjoyed it, despite not being a lover of coarse language. In the end my brain was filtering out the expletives anyway. The acting and writing are brilliant. My favourite characters are Al and Jane.
My only complaint when I first started watching was that the scenes indoors were often so dark I couldn't see properly what was going on. I was hoping the makers would use some artistic licence and brighten the sets. (Though maybe if I had a more modern tv set it would make a difference). However, the dark indoor sets and the perpetually muddy exterior really give you a feel for the times.
It took me a couple of episodes to figure out what was going on, but I quite miss it now it's not on any more.

Posted by: Alison at August 14, 2005 05:44 PM

It is hard to know what to say beyond the cliche that I am a fan. Telling a tiny bit about my background will help you understand just how much your books have meant to me. My maternal grandmother and my mother and I all grew up in Bolton Landing, not too far from the location of Fort William Henry on Lake George. My maternal grandfather owned a hotel and an inn on the lake until after WWII. My paternal grandfather was descendent from early Dutch and English settlers and lived in the town of Renselier near Albany. My paternal grandmother and her parents were mixed blood French and Indian (Mohawk) who grew up in the Canadian frontier and later settled in Port Henry on Lake Ticondiroga. My later childhood was in Schenectady. My husband's family came from New York City.

This explains my interest and your skillful story telling explains why that interest has been sustained through four books in this series. I have a few questions I'd like to ask:

1) What was Dolly Wilde's ailment? My own thinking was that it was Alzheimer's Disease which can strike people as young as in their 30s and 40s.

2) In the same vein, was young Robbie Bonner a victim of diptheria?

3) Will Nicholas Wilde's daughter, Callie's story be told in the fifth book? I thought what happened to Nicholas to be one of the most moving parts of FIRE ALONG THE SKY. He was a good, if flawed, man and he lost so much that it is no wonder he took that suicidal journey. When he took up his prize apple tree I thought perhaps he meant to start over. Later when Nathaniel, in telling of his death, made no mention of the tree, I exclaimed "What about his tree?". I was so glad he left it for Callie and my hope is that his legacy will live on in her hands.

This really isn't a question but another comment on your characterization. I tagged my comments here onto your discussion of characterization in DEADWOOD because I watch it most of all just for that reason. I want to say that I find your characterization just as rich as Milch's. Not just the major ones, but also the minor ones, the EB Farnum's of your saga. There is Nicholas whom I mentioned here, and Richard Todd is another multifaceted "villain" and Julian, Elizabeth's brother (it was he who first alerted me and I said "these characters have much more going on than at first meets the eye") and Nicholas's last wife the villainess whose name escapes me for the moment, but who like you thought, I found to have an admirable determination and straight forwardness despite her lying and meaness. There are no cardboard cut-out figures to be found in the books.

4) The points of view of the children of Elizabeth and Nathaniel have been represented in their female children Hannah and Lily. Will we get more of Daniel's point of view in the fifth book? If we are lucky you will have to give us Gabriel's story too.

6) This is my most burning question. When I wrote of your series to my book group, I used as a subject line "A book that takes liberties with a movie that took liberties with a book". That you did not adhere to strictly to the tale did not bother me. The stories you wrote are of Hawkeye's later life. However, I do have one gripe--the name changes. It didn't bother me that you stuck with the movie's switching from Cooper's plot and having Uncas'passion for Cora transfered to Hawkeye. I also understood completely that Bumpo was replaced by Bonner (even Michael Mann did not use Bumpo). Furthermore, Nathaniel is much to be prefered over Natty. But why didn't you let Hawkeye keep the name Nathaniel instead of giving it to his and Cora's son? I found it very confusing that Hawkeye is no longer Nathaniel but Daniel. Daniel is a good name choice because of the relationship of Daniel Boone and Kentucky but wouldn't it have worked better to let Hawkeye keep the name that Cooper and the movie gave him, and call his son Daniel instead? It took me the longest time to sort that out-- especially since some of the dialogue that takes place between Nathaniel and his "Boots" (love that appellation) in INTO THE WILDERNESS was dialogue that occurred in the movie between Hawkeye and Cora ("I'm looking at you, Ma'am"). As a result, it is hard to sort out the personality distinctions between Hawkeye and Nathaniel in your books. These characters blur in my mind so that sometimes when Nathaniel is speaking I see Daniel Day Lewis' face when that is the face I should be giving to his father Daniel.

7) Will the fifth book mention a little of what happens to Hawkeye out west? I know that in THE LEATHERSTOCKING TALES, Hawkeye did go west but I missed him greatly in FIRE ALONG THE SKY, just like I am going to miss Curiosity when her time comes. She is a great character and you have used her to great advantage in the telling of this saga.

8) Have you ever thought of writing a prequel with the story of Hawkeye and Cora? Since you gave some of the movie's dialogue between them to Nathaniel and Elizabeth you may not wish to do that.

Thanks for all the enjoyment you have given me in your writing and for considering the answers to these questions even if you may not be able to respond.

Best,
Karen

Posted by: karen ryder at August 19, 2005 10:39 AM

Karen -- lots of interesting questions. I will try to answer them in new entries, rather than by replying here.

Some of these questions have been raised and discussed already, though. If you use the search box in the lower right hand column you'll find a long series of comments on Dolly Wilde's illness and death. Type the word Dolly into the search box and see what comes up. Be sure to select "all" where it asks for how many hits you want returned.

Posted by: sara at August 19, 2005 11:22 AM

Post a comment






(you may use HTML tags for style)