tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post8425575369287183439..comments2023-12-19T17:38:40.984-08:00Comments on Right Behind: 3000 Miles from Graceland, Part 6Spherical Timehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02435055266803359329noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-64812034293800981532009-08-15T22:50:08.381-07:002009-08-15T22:50:08.381-07:00I love, love, LOVE the name Rod Logman.I love, love, LOVE the name Rod Logman.John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-83418535727914519662007-10-11T12:05:00.000-07:002007-10-11T12:05:00.000-07:00I don't know. Seems to me as though someone who's...I don't know. Seems to me as though someone who's as much of an uncaring jerk as Rod deserves a good slap every now and then. I mean, his kid just disappeared and he can't be bothered to remember it.<BR/><BR/>Also, he's a stand-in for the half dimensional, stock characters in Left Behind and they all deserve a good smack, so it's kind of cathartic...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-66251192861757529402007-10-11T11:41:00.000-07:002007-10-11T11:41:00.000-07:00I want to like this story, but I'm having a hard t...I want to like this story, but I'm having a hard time empathizing with the characters. Jenny was the more empathetic of the two until this Part, in which she smacks her husband around.<BR/><BR/>Is this meant to be a sign of how profoundly she's affected by events, or has she been abusing him for years? He seems to take it as a regular thing. <BR/><BR/>Or perhaps it was on purpose, and we're going to find out that she used to hit her son as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-16136137287173126452007-09-27T08:34:00.000-07:002007-09-27T08:34:00.000-07:00I find the on-camera collapse useful. The sight o...I find the on-camera collapse useful. <BR/><BR/>The sight of an anchor being seen suppressing emotion to continue working is something that one expects with <I>normal</I> disasters. Kennedy's shooting, 9/11, the flooding of New Orleans, etc. <BR/><BR/>This disaster is of a scope and scale magnitudes beyond anything anyone has ever seen. So it makes sense that the normal disaster-reactions break down in the face of it, and those used to acting controlled in the face of disaster fail.<BR/><BR/>It is tempting to follow the pattern we know of reaction to disaster from real life, in the face of L&J's characters curious non-reactions. But this is beyond any real life disaster, and the shock of seeing the expected disaster related self-control fail emphasizes it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-7971667771821087562007-09-27T08:33:00.000-07:002007-09-27T08:33:00.000-07:00Oh, and I just re-read the paragraph before the ne...Oh, and I just re-read the paragraph before the news report. It seemed awfully disjointed, so I smoothed it out...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-392554451842667192007-09-27T08:27:00.000-07:002007-09-27T08:27:00.000-07:00Interesting.I was going for the "personal connecti...Interesting.<BR/><BR/>I was going for the "personal connection" angle in that one. Apparently it didn't work quite the way I thought it would.<BR/><BR/>Then again, one of the most indelible memories of 9/11 I have is Peter Jennings sitting in the anchor seat for the entire day. As time went on he got more and more frazzled and closer to breaking down, but he just kept going.<BR/><BR/>So at this point I'll probably cut that paragraph. The question is, then, does the following paragraph were the woman (his producer, for the record) cuts in and sends the feed away still work?Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-62720468181880701362007-09-27T06:22:00.000-07:002007-09-27T06:22:00.000-07:00Not that it's not good! Sorry. I usually do the ru...Not that it's not good! Sorry. I usually do the rule of saying one nice thing FIRST. But really, the paragraph depicting the anchorperson soldiering on despite his tears was <I>awesome</I> - that's why I winced a bit at the paragraph following.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-23907718649309714672007-09-27T06:20:00.000-07:002007-09-27T06:20:00.000-07:00I agree. It's actually more effective if the ancho...I agree. It's actually more effective if the anchorperson <I>doesn't</I> break up on camera.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6545302900560676544.post-88388127430225155352007-09-26T10:18:00.000-07:002007-09-26T10:18:00.000-07:00Just to offer some constructive criticism, I'd omi...Just to offer some constructive criticism, I'd omit the following paragraph:<BR/><BR/>"He slumped forward on to the desk and began sobbing in to the sleeve of his suit coat. A barely audible, "Oh, Bethany...David...why?" came through the TV's speakers."<BR/><BR/>The paragraph before this one makes it clear that he's lost children and is distraught but trying to soldier through and do his job. Having him actually break down on camera doesn't add anything and detracts a little from the emotional tension, IMO. <BR/><BR/>The rest of it is awesome as per usual for this site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com