Of Swords and Parasols

1. So, what did Supernatural do this week that has half the people on my list who still watch it go "THAT IS IT!" anyway?

2. My gallbladder and uterus appear to be conspiring to do me in. Please send replacements.

3. Hey look, LJ's scrapbook feature is working. Very good, as I have tons and tons of icons I need to upload.

4. Marjorie Liu apparently has a new Dirk and Steel book out. Apparently, neither Hastings nor Wal-Mart has it. Hmph.

5. Am thinking about doing a post comparing various versions of Snow White. By which I mean "centered on Snow White and/or thematically structured around "Snow White" with a Snow White representative in the lead role. (Mostly movie and TV.) Think of some obscure version you don't think I've heard of/seen.

Actually, I opened the post page before bed purely to ask about Supernatural, but it didn't work out that way.

Post prompted largely by Paul Cornell’s post here, in which intelligent TV apparently didn’t exist before the current popular shows, and the only reason anyone wouldn’t like Dollhouse is if they couldn’t handle things not always being perfectly black and white.

So, “moral ambiguity,” also known as “grey areas” is pretty much the internet and media’s favorite thing these days. Well, the internet may still like slash and wank more. I’m not sure.

Anyway, I rather like grey areas, but I also hate how they tend to manifest and get defended.

The thing about moral ambiguity is that, by saying it’s ambiguous, you are saying that there are circumstances in which something is acceptable.

Take downloading material that is not in the public domain. This is illegal, and is theft, but I highly doubt there is anyone reading this who hasn’t done it at some point. However, what if you are downloading with the intent of only completing your consumption if it is something you will legally purchase. You stole, but you stole with the intent of still giving the owner money for it by proper means.

Take the other extreme, which is killing another person. Hopefully, everyone here thinks this is wrong. However, if you killed a person because they were trying to kill you, or someone else, was it still wrong? Either way, a person is killed, the question is if one “deserved” it more than the other, and if the action saved even more lives.

To apply it to media, you have shows* that are, to some degree, built up around the idea of moral ambiguity, or at least actively applying it.

Some of these shows can’t really be exactly compared to the real world and morality as we’re familiar with it, and are called things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural, and are about humans killing monsters to keep them from killing other humans, or are called something like Farscape and are about convicts flying across the universe to escape space Nazis. Some of the moral questions have real world allegories, but many can only exist in that particular fictional universe.

But then you have something like, say Remington Steele, where the core concept is that a female detective was fed up with taking orders from male detectives who weren’t as good as her, and wouldn’t advance her because she was a woman (remember, this was the 80s) so she quit and opened her own agency. Only people didn’t want to hire a female detective, so she created a fictional male boss, and was a success. And then a con artist discovered her scheme and blackmailed her into letting him pretend to be the fictional boss in return for a share of the profits, and she was even more successful. So, she achieved her goals-after a fashion-and her clients got superior service, but she did it by committing fraud and lying through her teeth to almost everyone she ever met.

Which brings me to Dollhouse. Dollhouse is built around the concepts of rape and human trafficking (and, increasingly, the battery of women, though that’s not as much a core concept as it is a steadily increasing trend) and each episode is designed to create some sort of sympathy for a rapist and/or human trafficker, while often glamorizing and fetishizing the actual rape and slavery. (Priya doesn’t have to deal with being drugged into a facsimile of insanity so a rapist can turn her into a fetishized sex toy, and then killing her abuser in self defense, she can remain a mindless slave of the people her abuser sent her to, continue to be sold for sex and various other illegal purposes, and eat banana pancakes. It doesn’t matter that Madeline was raped and deliberately driven to near suicide as a doll, she can think the guy who did that to get closer to the object of his sexual obsession is her savior. It’s ok to come up with multiple excuses to punch a passive Echo who cannot defend herself in the face if it will cure her of technologically induced blindness, or make her switch to an assassin imprint.)

So. Rape. Slavery. Physically abusing women. These are the things considered “morally grey” by Dollhouse and portraying, and describing, them as such, is saying that there are occasions when these things are acceptable.

There are plenty of things that do not have an exact moral assignation, or to which there can be exceptions. There are also things that, yes, are black and white.

*Not that this is in any way, shape or form the only or even best form of media that explores the subject, but it’s what prompted the post and, uhm, limiting myself to US TV will be better understood by more people than pages and pages on Blade of the Immortal, Fullmetal Alchemist, Saiyuki, and Basara.

(Icon is Robin Hood, and so totally appropriate for the topic!)

So, Supernatural?  Is like the abusive ex-boyfriend whose tricks I keep falling for.

Season 5 spoilers.


( spoilers )

Rightstuf's current sale is 33% off Tokyopop books.  Sale ends 3/16.

But more importantly, worldserpent  just linked me to a post by pen37 , one of the contributors to In the Hunt:  Unauthorized Essays on Supernatural.  The post is largely a reaction to this review of the book.  The reviewer apparently hates these kinds of books, and categorizes the contributors by whether or not they're "true fans."  pen37 's post is just fine and a reasonable, headbangy reaction.  The review is unintentionally hilarious.  I am especially fond of how Mary Borsellino's essay is dismissed because she talks about Buffy, and the reviewer hasn't seen Buffy, and because men are mentioned, but also praises Jacob "Supernatural is feminist because there are evil women in it who pervert the pure relationship between Sam and Dean, and that means women are powerful" Clifton.  Of course, one points out flaws in the series, and the other praises it.

So, Jacob Clifton of TWOP, you say female presence is strong and prominent in Supernatural because the important female characters and relationships are used as reflections of men and their relationships? That killing them gives them presence and power as long as we know a bit about them first? That Lilith is a strong and powerful female presence because she "perverts" (your word, not mine) the relationship between the Winchesters by separating them? This is my response to your defense of the portrayal of women in Supernatural:


spn_womens work - luminosity & sisabet

I am amused, though, that it follows up Mary Borsellino's essay that objectively addresses how women are portrayed and given/not given agency in terms of how the series can be viewed as reclaiming the genre's masculinity that it "lost" with Buffy. That's actually the only interesting essay so far. Not because of the subject matter, but because it's the only one that wasn't pure praise or character defense. *more to come when I finish the book*

If Supernatural is your happy place, or your comfort viewing, or you don’t understand why there was a huge fuss about race and gender in the show last year, then I recommend you skip this post. If the above does apply to you and you read it anyway, please keep in mind that explanations of how something isn’t racist or sexist usually only serves to make me more convinced that it is, especially when it’s implied that I’m just looking for something to be wrong. You are always more than welcome to disagree with me, just don’t expect me to agree because you tell me it isn’t something.

The thing is, I used to love Supernatural. I thought the first season was flawed, but had a lot of potential. Early season two did what I thought it should do in terms of direction and supporting cast, but then the new characters I liked were written out. (In one case, terribly, once you learn that they thought it was an “elegant” conclusion to her story.) In addition, two other characters who could have been compelling and sympathetic antagonists were made into evil stereotypes simply because they weren’t on Sam and Dean’s side. The two characters who were dropped with incomplete stories were the first two recurring female characters, and the two evil stereotypes were the first two recurring POC characters. I liked season 2 when I watched it, but started feeling uncomfortable about it shortly after. When I started to hear about season 3, I decided that I was officially breaking up with the show until it figured out how to keep non-evil vaginas around for longer than a few episodes.

However, I was offered a chance to review an ARC of In the Hunt: Unauthorized Essays on Supernatural. As it apparently covers through season three, I thought I should have actually seen all of the material covered.

The following comments are not really an analysis, just observations and comments, though it is long winded.  And probably more analytical than I originally intended for it to be. It should also be noted that my view is likely influenced by the fact that prozacparkand I watched a certain late season episode together a few months back. If you’ve seen the season-or heard a lot about season three-you can probably guess which one it is, as it was the subject of a lot of debate at the time.

( spoilers and comments )

I likely won’t post much more on the season, unless there are specific episodes I feel like ranting about, or noting for when I read the book.

And now to read and bit and fix dinner while I decide whether to watch Foyle’s War or Dark Knight, as Netflix was amazingly random in what DVDs it sent (Foyle’s War was around #70, and Dark Knight somewhere around #100.)
 

Earlier today, someone(I forget who...if it was you, tell me!) linked to an article about long-suffering women of prime time TV.   One thing it briefly touches on is that some women are victims and some aren't, despite suffering the same-or worse-hardships as the "victims."  On the one hand, with the characters I recognize, I wholeheartedly agree in the case of which women are victims, and which aren't.  The article, though, never really delves into this, and barely mentions it more than in passing.

So, I'm wondering, what makes a female character a victim, and what makes her not be a victim?

For me, I think a lot of it can be explained with Makie, Rin, and Hyakurin in Blade of the Immortal. 
ETA:  And the reason I used this icon instead of Rin was because I was originally going to talk about Jo, too, but ran out of time before I had to leave for work.  I suspect I'd have MUCH more to say here if I'd seen season 3 and Bela's arc, but for now, just Jo.



TL;DR?

I think a lot of it has to do with whether the character sits there and mopes, or gets back on her feet and tries to punch what knocked her down in the face.

Anyway, what's everyone else's opinion on this?  What's the line (not including the experience itself) between what makes a character a victim, and what keeps them from being a victim?

redbrunja.livejournal.comI've been following all the "Sexism and Supernatural" stuff for most of this season.  I can't comment a lot because I haven't seen any of this season(aside from scenes from Bela's last episode, which, with no context, actually left me feeling uncomfortable and sent me off watching cute stuff.  Some of which may or may not have involved Jo, as one cannot be mad at Dean when he has the "you are cute and I like you but I don't know what to do with you because you're all little sister-y and I'm scared of your mother" look.)

Anyway, coffeeandinkhas a nice roundup of some posts on the subject, including examining the roles female characters play in the various seasons, and the brothers' attitudes towards women.


Also, a few days ago redbrunjamade an interesting post on text, subtext, canon and fanon.  I'm not sure I agree with all of it*(my reply is somewhere on the second page, if curious) but it's pretty interesting.


*More because it approaches the subject primarily from the viewpoint of shipping than disagreeing with the arguments.  I can crack!ship almost** anything for at least five minutes, but about 99% of shipping that isn't canon shipping just makes me scratch my head and go "BZUH?" before I even get to any issues I may have with the actual pairing.

**Except that I cannot crack!ship anything in Blade of the Immortal, and I cannot crack!ship SDK!Kyo  or even imaginr it.  Probably because Kyo/Yuya is already pretty much a crack!ship made epic canon, and Kyo himself is pretty much the extreme crack version of every retard shounen hero ever.

There are certain(rare) things I prefer to be spoiled for, so I can brace myself.  Like the events of tonight's Supernatural.

So, there is apparently a new kerfluffle in the Harry Potter fandom. I think there's a new one every week. I'm not linking because, seriously, I've seen it I think 5 times already. It's all anyone was talking about while I was pushing my nephew's stroller through the crowded mall. I think I had more fun.

If you ignore them and do not play their RPG or give them attention by pointing out the insensitivity, they will decide no one cares and that it was a bad idea and go away.

However. I AM BORED.

The following is purely the product of a bored brain stuck in the empty half of a large building on a pleasant Texas Saturday. You have warned.

Therefore, I shall attempt to address the wank of two fandoms I hang out on the edges of.

First of all, there's Supernatural and Jo. I have not yet seen s3, so I got nothin' on Bela and Ruby. HOWEVER! I have come up with a solution to the objections to Jo's...well, existing in the first place.

Jo is John's daughter.

Indeed. Now, imagine right after Mama Winchester died, John met Ellen and Papa Harvelle. John's in a bad place, what with the whole "a demon killed the love of my life and wants my infant son" thing, Ellen has a husband always off hunting demons. It writes itself. AMIRITE? I am, aren't I. This, of course, is the reason Ellen REALLY objected to Jo being off with the boys.

Sure, all the Dean/Jo and Sam/Jo shippers will kinda be screwed, but Jo would no longer be a threat or potential love interest and the fans would no longer have an objection. Plus, most of the fandom is into Wincest already. If you still want to ship, it would just be a new kind.

Then there's Avatar. Now, Avatar has its massive Katara/Aang faction and its massive Katara/Zuko faction. Never the twain shall meet. Somewhere in there, there's the Mai/Zuko shippers also poking their heads out. And I'm sure there's also this poor little Zuko/Aang faction too scared to stick its head out. But basically, the Zuko/Katara/Aang thing rules the fandom.

But I have had a revelation. Katara is not Aang's love interest. Mai is not Zuko's love interest. The truth is that Aang and Zuko are merely red herrings. In the end, it shall be revealed that the true OTP of the show is Katara/Mai.

Zuko and Aang will last be seen with their mouths hanging open. The internet will explode. That, or the fans' heads will explode when it happens. The Zuko/Aang shippers will finally be brave enough to stick their heads out. The Katara/Zuko, Katara/Aang and Mai/Zuko fans will never recover. Did I mention it will overload the entire internet?

Uhm. yes.

And now that I have entertained myself for 20 minutes, I will shut up and go away.

I did warn you that I was bored...