Quote:
Originally Posted by Davonu
It was post #48 Boomer!! There’s an hour I’ll never get back!! 
jk.  Thanks for both replies!! |
Hey! Nope. It was Post #49. You made me look again though. Checked both the old and new versions of TOTV. Oh well, the mystery continues.
I still like
Yellowstone first better. But if this whole thing is sounding good to you, just go ahead and make a commitment to getting started. Warning: You could get hooked.
You say 48. I say 49. Don’t worry. I will not go all “Beth Dutton” on you.
Boomer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captainpd
Two pages of the same answer. Characters from 1883 aren't in Yellowstone so there is no "development" of characters
|
The Dutton characters are cut from a different cloth than probably most people, who would have taken the fortune they were offered and gone on to a different kind of life without their land. But the Duttons stay and fight constant battles in a war that seems to be allowing only a series of temporary victories. The Duttons keep doing allllll kinds of things to hold on.
Then there are the family dynamics that can feel kind of Shakespearean sometimes.
When you later see
1883, it shows what the previous generations of Duttons were made of, too.
Tough bunch. . .Nature? Nurture?
- - - - - - -
To the posters who commented on the foul language: I am not a prude, BUT, I certainly agree that the constant reaching for that type of language gets old pretty quick. I think it turns into a distraction because it is too much. I don’t know why writers think they have to do that constantly — and then some more.
Of course, certain characters are never going to say, “Aw, shucks” or “Phooey” — that would be really bad writing.
But so many writers go over the top with “the word.” It is like ruining a perfectly grilled steak with way too much salt. I wish they would get a good editing. Some — OK. Every other word — not OK. But it does not keep me from watching a good storyline.
Boomer