Yes, Girls. As in, the HBO show! What did you think I meant?

Now, I know everyone and their mom is talking about Girls, and I really, really didn’t want to add to that noise… But I have to. I have to, because after watching Lena Dunham’s movie Tiny Furniture, I thought I was going to hate Girls. (To be fair, I didn’t hate the movie. I just didn’t enjoy it either.)

But I was wrong. I didn’t hate Girls. In fact, I kind of love it.

What’s it about?

Girls is an insightful look at the lives of a certain type of twenty-something. It’s smart more than funny, sexual more than sexy. The best part is, Lena Dunham (creator, writer, and star of Girls) isn’t afraid to “go there.” She isn’t afraid to go anywhere the characters take her. Even if it’s awkward or uncomfortable. Even if it’s “unlikable.”

As a writer, I really admire that. Like, I’m not as square as my mother thinks — although I am square relative to a lot of people — but I’m not always brave enough to write about my “rounder” experiences.

Naturally, people keep comparing Girls to Sex and the City. An HBO show about 4 women in New York vs. an HBO show about 4 women in New York — yeah, it’s inevitable. And I think it’s a fair comparison. I can even map the character types to their counterparts. Hannah = Carrie, Marnie = Miranda, Jess = Samantha, Shoshana = Charlotte. But those equal signs are deceiving.

Girls is like Sex and the City, but without Photoshop. It’s the model without makeup on. It’s life as seen without the rose-colored glasses. It is not cute, hopeful, or romantic. It just is.

(Note: I’m a big SATC fan. I’m not saying Girls is better or worse, just different.)

Oh, and for everyone who keeps saying Girls is about “hipsters,” you really need to learn what a hipster is.

Girls sounds like a bunch of privileged white girls worrying about boys…

A) Well, in a way, yes.

B) So what?

C) Don’t most of us, regardless of age, race, or income, spend a decent amount of time on relationships?

D) Anyone can write a dismissive one-line summary like that. As Patricia Wrede pointed out (in a completely unrelated but excellent post): “The Lord of The Rings” is about a short guy with hairy toes who throws a ring in a volcano.

Okay, but who cares about these “girls”?

I do. And I’m not alone.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: New Adult stories are in demand. Why? Because people in their 20s, like me, want to see art and entertainment explore this awkward transitional time in our lives. Just like people in their 30s want to see family life, or people in their 40s want to see midlife crises, or people in their teens want to see high school and first love.

Everyone wants to see themselves reflected in art and entertainment. That’s the whole point.

(So please stop telling us that we’re so much more self-involved than other generations. We’re not. We just have the tools to rub it in your face now.)

On a related note, a band of intrepid New Adult writers recently launched the site NA Alley. I’m not affiliated, but they did quote me in a few places, and I definitely want to support their endeavor.

I’m still not interested in Girls

That’s fine. Really. No one says you have to be.

Closing thoughts

• It’s still early. Only 3 episodes have aired. Yes, I like Girls now, but I’m also curious and hopeful about how it will grow. I mean, does anyone remember the first season of SATC? With all the interviews and the talking directly to the camera? Yeah, shows can evolve. Sometimes they need time to grow into themselves. (Which is a particularly ironic statement when you apply it to a series about New Adults.)

• Part of me thinks it would be a dream to write for the show. Part of me wants to email Lena Dunham and tell her about TWENTY-SOMEWHERE and beg/hope for an opportunity. The rest of me realizes how ridiculous that would be and figures I’m better off just enjoying Girls as a viewer. (I will not tell you which part of me is winning right now.)

• Favorite lines:

Marnie: “He’s so busy, like, respecting me, you know? That he looks right past me, and everything that I need from him.”

Hannah: “Okay, you are a 23-year old girl who’s had the same boyfriend for 4 years. You’re also allowed to be bored. That’s an okay excuse too.”

Jonathan: “I want you to know, the first time I f*ck you, I might scare you a little. Because I’m a man, and I know how to do things.”

(Because the world totally needs another post about this…)

What did I think about the Hunger Games movie?

I loved it.

It wasn’t perfect, but I loved it.

(Especially Seneca Crane and his spectacular beard.)

For a fuller overview of my thoughts and feelings about the movie, check out Ingrid’s post on We Heart YA. There are jokes and pictures and really, really good observations. I give it all a big fat DITTO. Especially the numbered points at the end.

Ingrid closes her post with a very good question: How does this movie hold up for viewers who didn’t read the books?

Well, it just so happens that I went to see the movie with one such viewer: Andy. His thoughts and questions afterward were very telling, because they revealed how many blanks I had filled in without even realizing, how many little details retained significance for me but told him nothing. Don’t get me wrong: he enjoyed the movie. Just nowhere near on the same level that I did.

Story vs. message

I think the “problem” (though I hesitate to call it that) was that story was prioritized over message. To be clear: I think that was the right choice. It’s just that there were so many elements that had to be included — both to satisfy fans and to make the plot coherent — that with a “mere” 2 hours and 22 minutes, the deeper levels of meaning got relegated to the background. The menacing control exercised by the Capitol. The support for Katniss spreading among the districts. The avoxes. The uprising. These things were all shown, briefly, but without Katniss’s narration, and with so many other details competing for attention, it’s hard to comprehend their full weight.

You end up seeing the breadth of the story perfectly, but only glimpsing hints of the depth.

Also, the first two books use the arena as a metaphor for war (while the third book depicts war more literally, which I’m sure the third and/or fourth movies will do as well). But this film didn’t push the Hunger Games that far. Instead it focused on the idea of entertainment vs. ethics, and a society so concerned with its own pleasures that it becomes oblivious to the cost. An important message, to be sure, but it didn’t ring as true without the in-depth worldbuilding of the books.

Chemistry

The other problem with the film (IMO) was chemistry. Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson were both excellent in their roles — individually. But together? Not so much. The Girl on Fire and the Boy with the Bread produced, at best, a lukewarm dinner roll.

(Also, Josh with blond hair doesn’t hold a candle to Josh with dark hair.)

The cave scene in particular was so fraught with tender confusion and emotion — in the book. But in the movie, it felt rushed, almost stilted. Now, a caveat: I think for Katniss, that interaction WAS awkward and a bit forced. So maybe, maybe, that’s how Jennifer and Josh were playing it. And maybe that means they’ll heat up as the series goes along.

In the meantime, Jennifer’s chemistry with Liam Hemsworth was smoking like a seventh grade science experiment. And I’m not even on Team Gale…

But seriously, I loved it

Okay, put down the bows and arrows; leash up your muttations; and please, please, don’t send Tracker Jackers after me. I’ll say it again: I LOVED THE MOVIE. I even went through 3 whole tissues (versus 1.5 tissues for The Vow, for example). I just didn’t think it was perfect.

But then again, how could anything so beloved, so monumental in my imagination, possibly be lived up to?

It couldn’t. So I guess I’ll just have to read the book again. :)

Since Facebook is forcing this Timeline phooey on all of us, I had to design a cover image for my page. I wanted something simple and visual, but still personalized and relevant. I hope/think I came up with something good…

As time goes on — and I get published, and eventually have multiple books out (?!) — I can update the bottom shelf with my covers, and move the other books/spines up.

(Also, yes, that’s Andy’s book. I’ll be blogging about its new cover soon-ish.)

And then, because Photoshop can be addictive…

Okay, actually it’s just that I love this line from Kelly Clarkson’s “Stronger.” The design is pretty simple/clean, because that’s the way I like my desktop wallpapers. I was thinking I could do a whole series of these — with inspirational or writing-related quotes — to satisfy my occasional design itch. But I dunno, we’ll see. There are probably better ways to spend my time, lol.

I think this is the longest I’ve gone without blogging in years… Completely unintentional, mind you! I have plenty to say, I just can’t seem to get around to saying it.

Normally I think apology posts are pointless/silly — and maybe this still is — but I wanted to explain.

1) I was traveling last week. To Houston to see my parents, with a side trip to Dallas to see my aunt. Lots of driving, and one frustratingly delayed flight. Not a lot of internet time.

2) I got back on Monday and was planning to blog that night. But then I slipped and fell while walking Riley. Several dizzy spells, one compression brace, and a couple ice packs later, I suspect I may have a sprained knee. :(

So please excuse me while I hobble around — literally and figuratively — for a bit.

I hate you. My dog ought to hate you too, but he’s kind of dumb. Hence he eats your things. Hence he wakes me up at 4 AM. Hence we hurry half-asleep to the kitchen so he can vomit — a record 6 times. Hence I stay up another 2 hours worried that he’s going to get dehydrated and die. Hence I am miserable and zombie-like today.

No love AT ALL,
Kristan

PS: Not that you care — because if you did, you wouldn’t make your things smell so damn good to dogs — but Riley is totally fine now. And I am going to take a nap.