Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett.
On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, "emilymae...@yahoo.com" <emilymae...@yahoo.com> wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are "douche's". Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, "Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it." Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, "Hey, I need your help on this one." And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB <turquoiseb@...> wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters "B.S." -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, "Bloated Syntax." http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King "needs editing." I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to "sound bites" and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In "The Stand," King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
