Riverdale Is Barely Above Average | The CW's Riverdale Review

"Sometimes we don't choose the ideas. The ideas choose us," -Allison Tait

This week, Lauren and I binge-watched Riverdale. No need to comment on how late we are. 

As usual, we'll start with the bad. And boy, was there a surprising amount of it. 

1. Betty's Character (or lack thereof)

Betty was by far my least favorite character. At times, even Archie was more expertly written. While Betty did do the most to further the murder plot, and her history was interesting, Betty herself was not interesting at all. 

Breaking it down to it's most basic, characters need to have two essential things: an interesting personality, and an internal conflict. 

Betty is ultimately uninteresting. No part of her personality is captivating to the audience, nor makes us want to watch her. What makes Veronica so charismatic is her bold confidence, her commanding presence. What makes Jughead so lovable is his dry humor. What outstanding personality traits does Betty have, to distinguish her from the tired girl-next-door archetype? Any personality trait that makes her charismatic, engaging, or enjoyable? Central characters need to be interesting and charismatic, so they hold our attention until we connect with them emotionally. 

Betty's internal conflict - if you can even call it that - is brushed to the side. All characters need to have an internal conflict. It's like a requirement. Jughead has his low-self esteem, and his messed up family. Veronica has her identity crisis to handle, along with her messed up family as well. Even Archie has an internal conflict, with him balancing his dad's work with music and football. 

Sure, you could argue that it's the 'darkness' inside of Betty is her internal conflict, but is that ever explored? No. Should it have been explored?  Yes. Could it have been explored more? A thousand times yes.

We spend so much time with Betty and her family, but her internal conflict is barely even touched on. Everyone else got moments for their internal conflicts to be discovered and even resolved, sometimes. But Betty didn't get that time of day, and before you try and tell me she deserved more screentime, please refer to the first problem I mentioned with Betty as a character. 

2. Confused Narrative

Riverdale is confused. Confused on what it wants to do. Confused on what it wants to be. Confused on who it's protagonist is. 

This point is a big one, because it covers the many structural and writing errors in this show. 

Before we get into the meat of the show, I'd like to discuss how convenient some plot points are. People hear things because they need to, people overreact to cause drama, etc. It was a cheap way to further the plot, sometimes. 

Onto the big structural failings. 

First, is it's lack of a protagonist. Argue all you want that this is a group narrative, but an integral part of fiction is the protagonist. Not necessarily the main character(s), but the protagonist. 

What I mean by this is that a main character is someone we spend a lot of time with in the narrative. The main characters are Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead. All other characters are secondary or tertiary characters. 

However, the protagonist is the character who the story is about. This is the character who we are supposed to connect with the most, who is the hero, who drives the story. Riverdale, however, is utterly confused about this fact. There can only be one protagonist. That's just how fiction works best. 

Archie, who is painted as the protagonist, does little to further the plot - which is the whodunit of Jason Blossom. Archie, who is painted as the protagonist, is a static character. Archie, who is painted as the protagonist, has a very disconnected story from the main plot, and I think that's his greatest flaw. 

His internal conflict - music vs. football/dad - doesn't relate to Jason's murder at all. Veronica's and Jughead's internal conflict does, and Betty's external conflict are all intertwined with the messy world that is the town of Riverdale, which is why they flow naturally and are interesting to watch. Unfortunately, the public consensus is that Archie's conflict is too polarized from the actual conflict of the show that it detracts from everything else. 

This also has to do with how this show wastes its time. Why were the Pussycats relevant? Why did we spend a whole episode on the talent show, when there were far more important and interesting things that could further character development and the plot? They didn't make us care about Archie, and, in turn, his music, so the episode felt like a waste of time, when it would have been better spent with Betty finding her sister. 

The show tries to put the focus on Archie, when the real meat of the show lies elsewhere.

3. Archie's Mommy issues (or, rather, just Archie himself)

More ranting about Archie, because he, along with Betty, deserved to be ranted about. 

Starting with the Ms. Grundy storyline. Aside from it being downright illegal, Archie is supposed to be 15/16 - a sophomore in high school - and Ms. Grundy is supposed to be in her late 20s, early thirties. Despite what Archie says, this relationship is predatory and toxic. 

While it was beyond cringey while it was happening, when Ms. Grundy was removed from the scene, Archie became much less interesting, if that was even possible. All of the questions that it raised were brushed aside. Is he doing this because he has mommy issues? What has Grundy done to him to make him trapped in this unhealthy relationship? How will this affect him in the future? 

This is much more of an interesting internal conflict than his music vs. everything else. 

Something that distinguishes Jughead's writing passion from Archie's music is that we can understand why Jughead likes writing. It is subtly expressed through his narration, his introversion, and his dedication. Inversely, we never can identify with why Archie loves music so much. We're never given an "it gives me inner peace" or an "I love what music can do to the human soul". We cannot see the logical explanation for Archie the character's love for music. 

Combined with the show's utter confusion on how to portray Archie as the protagonist, Archie comes off as flat and disappointing. 

~ 

Now, onto the good, which is the reason I didn't rate it a 4/10. 

1. Jughead and Veronica 

In case you aren't aware yet, Jughead and Veronica are the saving graces of this show. They are beautifully written characters. 

First, Jughead. Perfectly charismatic and sympathetic, he adds another layer to the angsty bad boy with a big heart. His internal conflict, and how it wraps itself up in the town of Riverdale, is poignant and interesting. The commentary on his social status, his emotional reactions, everything about him makes him seem, truly, like he's a real person.

 We sympathize with him not because he's hot - unlike what everyone else might argue - but because he is flawed, and both the audience and Jughead can see that. We see how his problems affect him and his life, unlike a few other characters.  Then, through Betty, Archie, and the whole murder debacle, he faces his demons, accepts it, and overcomes, little by little. He is by far the best character on this show because everything he does furthers his external and internal conflict.  He undoubtedly has the strongest character arc. 

On to Veronica. 

Veronica, whilst being portrayed as the 'rich bitch', is barely second to Jughead in being the best character.  Again, she is charismatic and interesting. 

Her internal conflict - her identity vs. her father/family - is a perfect layer to this ultimately complex small town, and it was explored tactfully and perfectly. She turns the idea of the 'rich bitch' on its head. We see her post-character shift, and the audience is pleasantly surprised by her genuine goodness, despite her villainous vixen-esque looks and attitude. It makes her all the more interesting and compelling to watch when she's on screen. 

Veronica's compassion and devotion to comfort others are admirable, and her struggle to defy her family is a cornerstone of the teenage existence. However, it's done so well that sometimes the cliche notes that her storyline hits can be overlooked because of her compelling nature as a character and how well it's executed. 

Like Jughead, none of her actions are meaningless. All of them further her external and internal conflict. They blend together almost seamlessly, and her motivation in solving the murder plot makes her a wonderfully active character. 

Jughead and Veronica are faceted and compelling characters who are the protagonists of their own story, and who drive their own external and internal conflicts. They are interesting and well-written, and unfortunately, Betty and Archie just aren't. 

Honorable Mention: Cheryl

Because I just had to give her a shoutout. A new iconic Regina-George archetype has emerged: Cheryl Blossom, who has a surprisingly deeper layer than the infamous Mean Girl. 

At first, I hated Cheryl. Then, I loved to hate her. And then I found myself genuinely liking her. Not because she was a good person, but because she morphed into a real person. 

As more and more of her life is revealed, we begin to see why she is the way she is, and her cruelty has some context, some meaning. Her erratic behavior becomes entertaining and intriguing. Her descent into near madness seems like it was a long time in the making, and it becomes even more satisfying to witness. 

Cheryl grows to be more complex throughout the show, paralleling our knowledge of the murder with our knowledge of Cheryl as a person, and this makes for a pleasantly surprising character arc to add to the mix. 

But her implied incest with Jason. Holy crap, no thanks. 

2. Small Town Dynamic

This is much smaller of an observation, but it really added to the overall watching experience. 

They really nailed the dynamics in a small town, or really, a small setting. I live in a small town, and use to go to a really small school, so the twisty drama that was slowly peeled back like layers was engaging to watch. 

Riverdale does have a very strong concept. The secretive, murder-mystery works well with the modern portrayal of teenage dysfunction. No one in the town is exempt from secrets, and I will commend this show for constructing and weaving it together so nicely. It reflects the culture of middle, small-town America with poignancy. The dynamics between the football players, the good girls, the rich bitches, and the outcasts reflects the culture of an enclosed environment.

 The town lore, although darker than what I'm used to, is realistic in terms of the way that it influences the people and the society. The setting was colorful in the way that a murderous clown is, and the ambiance/aesthetic of the small town is spot on. 

I'll also commend it for not having massive twist endings. Sometimes shows like that can be exhausting, but the show used them wisely to shock the watcher at the appropriate times. 

~

In short, Riverdale isn't as good as everyone said it was. Betty and Archie suck, and it has poor narrative structure because of convenience, protagonist confusion, and time wasting. Despite that, it's clever plotting, overall concept, and two most developed characters are what made me enjoy this tv show regardless.

~

6.5/10 would recommend. 

Now, just because I rated this show a 6.5/10, doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Think of it like a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes. Above average (5/10) but nothing great or special with some glaring pitfalls. Don't get your Middle American scandals in a twist.  

~The WordShaker

Guest Post: In Defence of Ghostwriting by Amy L. Sauder

When I discovered Olivia’s reservations about ghostwriting in the world, we agreed to share our thoughts. I think ghostwriting has a place in the literary universe, and here’s why:

Why to consider hiring a ghostwriter:

*Actual image of a ghostwriter*

In my class “Do You Have a Book in You?” I don’t coddle. I don’t say, “You have a story to tell, so you have a book in you.” You may have a book in you, but there’s more than just “having a story to tell” involved in that.

And for some people, they have a story to tell, but they don’t have a book in them. They don’t have a passion for the writing, they have a passion for the message, the story. Those people would be wise to at least take a moment to consider a ghostwriter.

Consider this:

- If writing isn’t your dream, are you willing to devote time and energy to writing a book instead of devoting that time and energy to your actual dream?

 - Since you likely aren’t trained in writing since it’s not your passion, are you willing to sacrifice quality in getting your book out there – sacrificing the number of readers and the impact of the message?

 -Alternatively, can you devote the adequate time, effort, and income to receive the training necessary to clearly communicate the story you want to tell with the quality it deserves?

 -If you do choose to devote time, energy, and income towards receiving training on writing, are you willing to chance diluting the passion of the message with the obligatory monotony of a medium you aren’t passionate about working in?

There are options other than hiring a ghostwriter of course: Telling your message in a medium you *are* passionate about, but that’s a whole nother blogpost – or actually, it’s a 30-minute online course you can take for free ;)

If you look at those questions and decide, “Yes, I must have a book out there, but no, I can’t write it.”

Then instead of devoting time and energy to writing a book, instead devote some finances to hiring a ghostwriter.

What makes ghostwriters the bomb-diggety:

Ghostwriters aren’t quite ghosts, sadly. But they’re still more or less supernatural in their capabilities!

They’re like the undercover secret agents of the writing world. The trained, the elite, the you-never- saw-it-coming – the ghostwriters.   

-Us regular writers take years of writing to find our own voice

-Ghostwriters are shapeshifters, finding the unique voice of each person they are writing for.

 -Us regular writers mostly write something we’re passionate about

-Ghostwriters use a magical spell to transfer your passion into their words. Your passion is infectious and as it seeps into them, topics or stories the ghostwriter may have never been passionate about are suddenly passionately written!

 -Us regular writers might be considered semi-narcissistic – speaking of myself here mostly ;) They devote their life to making their dreams come true.

-Ghostwriters are fairy godmothers, passionate about devoting their lives to making others dreams come true. How cool is that! 

-Us regular writers are clumsy and walk into doors and walls and lampposts

-Ghostwriters are also clumsy, but at least they float right through the objects. Or wait, is that just ghosts?

Why readers should care about ghostwriting:

Readers should be ecstatic to support the existence of ghostwriters. Not only do ghosts make for great stories, but *ghostwriters* make for great stories. More quality stories will exist for readers when non-writers choose one of these three options:

 1)  share their story in a medium they’re skilled and passionate in

 2)  have the passion and take time to gain the skill of writing before putting the story out there

 3)  hire a ghostwriter to marry their passion and knowledge of the content with the ghostwriter’s passion and skill for writing

The problem with ghostwriting:

Now here’s the horrid part about ghostwriters – as awesome as they are, they don’t get the credit. Hit the NYT bestsellers list, win the Pulitzer prize, get a movie deal – everyone applauds the author (the person who hired the ghostwriter.) The ghostwriter is, well, ghosted. They generally can’t even say they wrote it, because they *officially* didn’t.

*Also actual image of a ghostwriter*

So why does the person who hired the ghostwriter get to be the author? Why do they get credit?

Ideas are a dime a dozen. Scratch that. Ideas don’t cost a thing, in fact, us writers can’t turn them off. So no, a ghostwriter likely isn’t needing the idea from the author, that’s not what makes the book. But what we call the author, the person who hired the ghostwriter, they contribute much more than the idea.

I get why the person called the “author” is, in fact, the author. It’s their brainchild, their knowledge, their story, their platform, their audience, their marketing, their voice, and their passion.

The ghostwriter alone generally wouldn’t have all those things to get the book out there as a successful book, certainly not as the book it actually is. If the ghostwriter alone wrote the book, maybe it would miss the knowledge of the topic or the direct experience with the story. Maybe if the ghostwriter alone wrote the book, it wouldn’t reach as large an audience. Maybe if the ghostwriter alone wrote the book, it wouldn’t have that unique voice, style, or tone. Maybe it would just lack passion.

So on that note, mad props to the author for making all this happen!

How to fix the discrepancy:

I get it. The author deserves a lot of credit for making this book happen. And also, the ghostwriter deserves a lot of credit for making this book happen. It takes two. It most definitely takes great skill for a ghostwriter to take all the author has to offer and turn it into a quality book. And it most definitely takes the author to make the book happen in the first place.

Here’s my proposal, the main thing I’d change about the concept of ghostwriting to give proper credit:

On any ghostwritten book, have the front cover say “Written by [name of supernatural ghostwriter person], Directed by [name of the person who had the vision to make the book happen]”. We already do this for movies: listing actors, directors, producers, and all myriad of workers in the credits. Just do that for books with ghostwriters too – give them some credit for their kickbutt magical powers

  

What do you think?

 What say you? Do you think ghostwriters as an entity should just be called “authors”? Or do you think ghostwriters have their place in the literary universe hidden behind the scenes? Share your thoughts in the comments, check out Olivia’s counter-argument on my site, and join the convo!

~

Amy L Sauder has been called both “Quirky Meta Mystery” and “Walking Fairytale,” and she can’t decide which is the highest compliment.

Since gaining her English Lit degree, she has studied creative writing and dabbled in other arts she probably has no business dabbling in. Amy strongly believes that in some parallel universe her clumsy self has figured out how to be a trapeze artist. In any universe, she’s also passionate about mac 'n' cheese and red hair, but that’s beside the point.

You can follow her creative journey at amylsauder.wordpress.com, from the “Once Upon” to the “Ever After” and every point in between.

You can also find her on social media:

Facebook:  facebook.com/amylsauder

Twitter:   @amylsauder

~

Thank you, Amy, for collaborating with me! This discussion is nowhere near over, and we'd love to hear your thoughts. Don't forget to check out my strongly worded thoughts on her blog!

amylsauder.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/guest-post-how-ghostwriting-is-hurting-the-book-world

~The WordShaker

My Tumultuous Relationship with Swimming

"A writer must be in it; he has to be endangered by it. The best work that anybody ever writes is the work that is on the verge of embarrassing him, always," -Arthur Miller

Back in maybe fourth grade, I had my heart set on being an Olympic swimmer. 

Good thing that didn't turn out well. 

Long story short, I've been swimming since I was eight, and, between third and fifth grade, I got really competitive with my winter team. I was . . . really good for my age. I was young and strong and ate all the right proteins and carbs. 

But then, fifth and sixth grade happened. Which meant puberty happened and I gained a lot of estrogen weight, and I got into writing, art, and theater. This realization of my abounding creativity, combined with the added stress of competitive swimming 11 months out of the year, I started disliking competition. A lot. But by that point, I had abandoned the pipe dream of being an Olympic swimmer. I just wasn't cut out for it. 

I slowly eased off competition, until I only competed a few times during the summer, and this was a happy medium for me. But still, a part of me wanted to taste that gold, see those blue ribbons. However, the way my body developed (and the way I chose to develop it) and my work ethic weren't synonymous with always winning. And, nobody wins all the time, right?

But with the help of my amazing swimming friends (shoutout to Morgan, Sabrena, Donna, and Tess, etc.), I was able to accept that I swim just for me. I swim for the endorphins, for the feeling of the water like silk, for the hot summer nights and great friends. 

But to this day, I still have this cognitive dissonance inside of me.

follow me on instagram @olivia.j.the.wordshaker

I still want to win at the strokes I'm good at. I still want to push myself to the max all the time and be first in the lane I'm in. 

But when I don't win, and when I push myself too hard, it's not fun. I hate it. 

I want to have fun, to swim. I want to be carefree and just hang out with my friends, because hell, it's summer. 

But my ego gets in the way. My ego, my striving for perfection, makes this hard when coaches, and most importantly, myself, expects this out of me.

~

And I think I understand why this cognitive dissonance exists, and why I'm having such a hard time shaking it.

 It's because swimming is entirely objective. There are strict techniques, and a number determines good or bad, fast or slow. 

However, I am a creative soul. My brain just doesn't work like that; it can't comprehend the fact that I can still be 'good enough' and have success in such a rigid, objective space, for better or for worse. 

Very few things in my life, and in art itself, are objective. Someone can love a piece of my writing, but someone else can not understand it. My painting can win an award at a show, but then not get anything at another. 

Art, any kind, isn't really a win-lose situation. It's just art, and 90% of one's feeling of success or being 'good enough' isn't about a ribbon or praise, it's about creating something beautiful, something that resonates with you and someone else. And that can't be measured by a number.

~The WordShaker

Smells Like Teen Spirit | Olivia J

"Writing is really a way of thinking - not just feeling but thinking about things that are desperate, unresolved, mysterious, problematic, or just sweet," -Toni Morisson

Black with a touch of yellow, like the mustard on a grilled hot dog. Unless you're one of those heathens who drowns all their food in condiments. Four little letters that mean everything to my future. 

New books and old books have a different smell, and I can't tell you which one I like better. Minimum wage can add up fast. 

White like sunscreen, black like the lane lines of a pool. White like a screen, black like text. Gray like a hodgepodge of all of the above. 

Oily pigment ground into my skin, making the whorls blue and purple and green. Audio books and sweet tea can't cure even the worst artist's block. 

Smells like being stupid for the memory, for the photo. 
Smells like ambition and the cool of a summer night. 
Smells like relapses and feelings that don't make sense.
Smells like sugar and dog days and evanescence. 

Smells like teen spirit. 

~The WordShaker