![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Via my flist.
This is one of the most intelligent discussions of fandom & writing that I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
It tackles the same issue as Your Friends Are Not Watching the Same Show You Are (And That's Okay), but from a different angle - the angle of viewing something through a particular lens and ignoring contradictory evidence. The author even brings up Spike to illustrate a point, using the difference between how some fans saw him Vs. how the show portrayed him. (Who was monster and who was victim in S6? Was Spike mistreated or was Buffy? Fandom, I love you, but the overwhelming tendency to portray EVERYTHING as black-or-white drives me insane. Hence, me rarely stepping out from my cosy corner). Because nothing is SIMPLE. Good characters are complex. And writers even more so...
F.ex. Joss is a not a shining beacon of feminism. Nor is Moffat a misogynist. And to view either through a lens like that distorts everything you see. They are storytellers, and they have strengths and weaknesses, and even these tend to change over time. (The most stellar example would probably be when RTD was accused of homophobia post-CoE... Hence my deep distrust of Fannish Accepted Wisdom, despite the fact that fandom was what taught me about privilege & -isms in the first place.)
Um, anyway, READ THIS. Have I mentioned lately that I love sensible and levelheaded people?
A Scandal in Fandom: Steven Moffat, Irene Adler, and the Fannish Gaze
A couple of choice quotes:
(Also - final one tonight! *bites nails*)
It tackles the same issue as Your Friends Are Not Watching the Same Show You Are (And That's Okay), but from a different angle - the angle of viewing something through a particular lens and ignoring contradictory evidence. The author even brings up Spike to illustrate a point, using the difference between how some fans saw him Vs. how the show portrayed him. (Who was monster and who was victim in S6? Was Spike mistreated or was Buffy? Fandom, I love you, but the overwhelming tendency to portray EVERYTHING as black-or-white drives me insane. Hence, me rarely stepping out from my cosy corner). Because nothing is SIMPLE. Good characters are complex. And writers even more so...
F.ex. Joss is a not a shining beacon of feminism. Nor is Moffat a misogynist. And to view either through a lens like that distorts everything you see. They are storytellers, and they have strengths and weaknesses, and even these tend to change over time. (The most stellar example would probably be when RTD was accused of homophobia post-CoE... Hence my deep distrust of Fannish Accepted Wisdom, despite the fact that fandom was what taught me about privilege & -isms in the first place.)
Um, anyway, READ THIS. Have I mentioned lately that I love sensible and levelheaded people?
A Scandal in Fandom: Steven Moffat, Irene Adler, and the Fannish Gaze
A couple of choice quotes:
The thing about the latest round of "Is Steven Moffat sexist?" that's currently flapping round the blogosphere, is that if within the same week you can manage to get accused of hating women by a Guardian blogger, and simultaneously accused of championing women and hating men in the Christmas special by the Daily Mail ... you're probably doing something a little more complex than either side is giving you credit for.
[...]
Really her [Irene Adler's] reputation as The Woman Who Out-Thought Sherlock Holmes is entirely down to a couple of paragraphs of good press from Watson as narrator, rather than what she actually does in the action of the story. In that story, she doesn't actually keep pace with Holmes; she's genuinely taken in by Holmes' various deceptions -- even though she's been warned in advance to look out for him in particular. The victory she wins over Holmes is simply a matter of spotting when she's given herself away, and getting the hell outta Dodge before Holmes comes back -- having decided that she can't go up against "so formidable an opponent". Far from engaging in an intellectual battle of wits with Holmes, she's actively trying to avoid such a clash.
(Also - final one tonight! *bites nails*)
no subject
no subject
(Or: I am a Pollyanna. *g*)
Seriously though, I love me some shades of grey...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I dunno what you mean about $, sorry?
no subject
And re. $ I was asked to write an essay about Season 8 for Whedonistas... The actual money was TEENY, but you know - me, in a book! But it did mean reading s8 and thinking about how to talk about it in a positive way and... I didn't quite succeed. That is - my essay didn't make it into the book, which I'm sort of grateful for, really? Anyway, it's here if you're curious: BtVS Season 8: Please Mind the Gaps.
no subject
no subject
no subject
What I'm trying to say is that it's very important to value what is good in a writer and accept what is less so. And to realise how very difficult it is to get anything good made on TV these days. Armchair critics are the cruelest and fandom is full of them. I often think of the moment right at the end of "High Fidelity" where the guy realises he's sat on the sidelines all his life, both musically and romantically. Anyone can be a critic. To put your ideas out there as best you can, to have a go, that takes real courage.
I might not always like what Moff does with the Doctor. But I love what he's trying to do.
no subject
*nods a lot* I learned this early on with Joss, who was very fond of the 'these things happen when you're on a Hellmouth' explanation for any kind of plot hole. :) So I can appreciate LotT or EoT perfectly well, without worrying at all about all the stuff that makes no sense. (Also see my love of Torchwood.)
Armchair critics are the cruelest and fandom is full of them.
RTD has a marvelous bit in The Writers Tale re. this... 'Creating something is not a democracy. The people have no say. The artist does. It doesn't matter what the people witter on about: they and their response come after. They're not there for the creation.' There's more, but I'm not sure where, and the book is more than 700 pages long. *g*
Anyone can be a critic. To put your ideas out there as best you can, to have a go, that takes real courage.
Ooooh yes. And then comes the point where everyone sees the work through their own filter.
I might not always like what Moff does with the Doctor. But I love what he's trying to do.
:)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Thanks for the link to that article. Veeeery interesting! Ironically enough I was reading the comment section (really, I ought to know better!) of an article about Sherlock-- a couple of commenters were very upset about the "blatant homophobia" in Sherlock. They went on a some length about how homophobic the writers are. Including Mark Gatiss.
I'm still shaking my head over that one!
I assume that the commenters were johnlockers and mad at what they perceive as "ship teasing"
no subject
Poor you! But glad you finally got here. :)
Thanks for the link to that article. Veeeery interesting!
I looked at the date [of the post] and that thought 'I don't remember writing this' and then realised it was 2012... Not awake, clearly.
I was reading the comment section (really, I ought to know better!) of an article about Sherlock-- a couple of commenters were very upset about the "blatant homophobia" in Sherlock. They went on a some length about how homophobic the writers are. Including Mark Gatiss.
Oh I believe it. (I still remember the fallout from CoE...) And yes, they're probably upset that the characters aren't gay, although they should be a little more like Mrs Hudson and just be pleased that John is happy. :)