text:
Posts Tagged 'Thoughts'
Rebecca, Rowena, Puppies, Fanfic
Posted: August 16, 2015 in Critical Hit
Tags: Buried, Diversity, Feminism, Genre, Heteronormativity, Ivanhoe, POC, Queer Narratives, Racism, Rebecca, Rowena, Sad Puppies, Sexism, SF/F, Storytelling, Thoughts, Writing
A few years ago, I tried to read Ivanhoe, by Sir Walter Scott. I made it about halfway through before the roaring anti-Semitism finally drove me to fling the book at the wall, never to be resumed. I still don't know how the story ends, but once I'd calmed down enough to think about it, I was struck by the difference in characterisation between Rowena and Rebecca, and what that particular contrast still says about the way we write women in fiction. Rowena, as Ivanhoe's beloved, is meant to be the personification of all the feminine virtues of Scott's period – beautiful and pure and obedient and yearning – while Rebecca, reading between the very broad lines, is someone we're meant to root for despite her Jewishness without ever liking her best.
Except that, for precisely this reason, we do; but even though he wrote her that way, Scott doesn't seem to realise it. Rowena never reads like an actual human woman because she was never intended to be one: she is, quite literally, a platonic ideal, and that makes her dull and lifeless in addition to being passive. But because Rebecca has to work to even be seen as a person in the first place, she's much more fully human than Rowena ever is. Rebecca fights; she wins admiration by her actions, by sinking her teeth into the story and demanding to be seen: she has rough edges and strength of character, she's narratively active, and as such, it's impossible not to like her.
Here is what I took away from Scott's treatment of these women: Rowena, passive and set on a pedestal, is what he thought women should be, while Rebecca, active and human, is what he grudgingly acknowledged women were; or could be, at the very least, if they actively tried to overcome the handicap of their gender.
And thus the question I ask myself, when examining female characters on the page or screen: is this woman a Rowena, or a Rebecca? Meaning: has she been written as an ideal, so defined by what the author wants her to do – usually for a man's benefit, or to benefit his narrative (which classification, I hasten to point out, applies equally to female villains, who benefit the hero's narrative by being Evil Because Cartoonish Misandry And/Or Incompetence) that she doesn't come across as an actual human being? Or has she been written as a person, comprehensive and flawed and possessed of agency, even or especially if it makes her seem unlikeable or imperfect?
Slowly but surely, we're getting more Rebeccas. But most of the time, for a very long time, Rowena has dominated.
There's this feeling I get, whenever I read a Rowena-heavy story. It's a physical sensation, a sort of ephemeral chill that sinks into me with every male-only page, every chapter where women only exist to fill in the edges of stories that are really concerned with men. It feels cramped, like I'm crawling into some metaphysical box, and the older I get, the less comfortable it is, and the sooner I have to pull out again, the narrow confines chafing across my shoulders. It feels small in those stories, as though there's no room for me there. I feel the same way about heteronormative storytelling: the more aware of myself I become, the more conscious of my own identity, the stronger the impulse to scream at books that don't so much as acknowledge my existence. I feel a similar level of disgust about whitewashed stories, but being white myself, that visceral, squeezing element is missing – it's an intellectual outrage, rather than a personal affront, and while it still makes me angry, I can't pretend it's the same thing. Not, to be perfectly clear, because I think the absence or stereotyping of POC is somehow less important; rather, it's the difference between seeing your best friend punched in the face, and being punched yourself. Both assaults are utterly unacceptable, but one blow you feel secondhand, and the other in the flesh.
In 2010, I went to see the film Buried, which is shot almost entirely from the perspective of someone buried alive in a small box. It made for an intensely claustrophobic viewing experience: even knowing the camera wasn't going to suddenly cut to a different scene, you still expected it, still wanted it to, and the lack of variation swiftly became a physical itch, a writhing unease and discomfort.
That's what homogeneous storytelling feels like from the other side, when all the characters like you are either Rowena or stereotyped or absent altogether: claustrophobic. Go away and watch Buried, and whatever else you think of it – I hated it for reasons that had nothing to do with the cramped perspective – at least you'll learn what it's like to read a book or watch a show where part of you keeps waiting for the POV to leap to something new, something other than unrelenting sameness, only it never does, and all you feel is the tension caused by the absence of innovation.
Like being buried alive.
I'm sick of the Sad Puppies.
Look: let's be honest. The Puppies, by their own admission, aren't interested in stories about people like me, or the stories of other people who aren't like them, or stories which feature political arguments other than their own. There's something fundamentally paradoxical about their hatred of diversity: they seem to think of it as a box-checking exercise, some arbitrary, unrealistic obsession with describing impossible, or at least implausible, persons – but at the same time, they clearly believe such individuals not only exist, but do so in vast, conspiracy-carrying numbers, because who else do they think they're arguing with? The real world, according to Puppy gospel, is being steadily overrun with politically correct SJWs who are all queer or black or female or disabled or – gasp! – some dread combination thereof, and because they resent this tyranny, they don't want to encourage it by acknowledging those demographics in fictional stories. This doesn't stop them arguing, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that their stories are really reflective of the real world, even though their daily lives (they claim) are defined by a ceaseless political struggle that their fiction never reflects, partly because it's meant for entertainment purposes only (they say), but mostly (one suspects) because the only actual struggle they've experienced can be better described as a personal failure of empathy, viz: why the hell would anyone want to read a book about her?
"Her" being Rebecca, both literally and metaphorically. The Puppies are agoraphobic in a genre otherwise defined by sweeping claustrophobia: they want to stay in the buried box with the dwindling air supply, while the rest of us are desperately clawing to get out, away from them and into the sunlight. We want to breathe, to change the scene, and they'd rather we suffocated wholesale than let us.
Here's what fanfiction understands that the Puppies don't: inversion and subversion don't ruin the story – they just give you new ways to tell it, and new tools to tell it with. Take a platonic relationship and make it romantic; there's a story in that. Take a romantic relationship and make it platonic; there's a story in that, too. Take a human and make her a werewolf; take a werewolf and make him human. Don't try and sidle up on hurt/comfort like it's something you're ashamed to be indulging in; embrace the tropes until you have their mastery. Take a gang of broken souls surviving the apocalypse and make them happy in high school; take a bunch of funny, loving high school kids and shove them in the apocalypse. Like Archimedes, fanfic writers find the soul, the essence of what makes the characters real, and use it as a fulcrum on which to pivot entire worlds, with inversion/subversion as their lever of infinite length.
Without order, nothing can exist; without chaos, nothing can evolve. So the saying goes, and so it is.
A tip for male writers: if your female characters never defy your expectations – if they never surprise you, never throw a wrench in your plans, never successfully beg a greater share of the story and your attention than you'd initially planned on giving them – then you're not really writing women. You're giving us Rowena, not Rebecca; over and over and over.
Be wise to the difference.
On People
Posted: June 29, 2014 in Fly-By-Night
Tags: Human Nature, People, Personal, Philosophy, Rambling, Random, Thoughts
Warning: amateur philosophy.
People are basically good, and also basically asshats. We're a mixed bag, is what I'm saying.
Put it another way: people are fucking flawed, from breath to blood to atoms. I don't just mean bodies and brains, either; I mean whatever spirit or biological synthesis you choose to believe is steering each individual beast in the collective meatflock. We govern ourselves with an ever-changing yet eternal series of moral, spiritual, social and legal constraints more rigid, for the most part, than even the most optimistic view of human nature believes us to be capable of upholding en masse, because the alternative means giving up on our capability for goodness, change, improvement. We have the memories of mayflies and the cultural baggage of methuselahs, and are historically, as a species, very bad at noticing the dissonance, mostly because we're so obsessed with the solipsistic present or one of any number of hypothetical afterlives to focus on the actual physical future, as stands to be inhabited by actual physical humans who are not, in point of fact, us. We are capable of extraordinary kindness and unthinkable cruelty, sometimes within the same body; sometimes, even, within the same action. You want to know what human sentience is? It's the only thing in the universe capable of doubting its own existence. Being human means being awake to the fact that you can be tricked – by others, by yourself, by sense and thought and perception – and wondering, if only at the level of subconscious unease, how often you're actually right.
Which means that being human, dealing with humans, requires a somewhat paradoxical approach. On the one hand, you have to allow for human weakness, gullibility, culpability, ignorance, whatever you want to call it – not just in the immediate, short-term sense, but over and over and over again, as an acknowledgement of the fact that inevitably, people are going to fuck up; maybe in lots of small ways, maybe in just a few big ones, or maybe in all of them together, but whether we're nine years old or ninety, no matter how much we think we've learned, we still possess the capacity for error, because that is what human is. But on the other hand, we have to demand better of ourselves than a mere acceptance of imperfection; we have to adapt, apologise, learn, because otherwise, what's to stop us from embracing our worst qualities, not just as inevitable negatives, but as behavioural mandates? For our own safety and sanity, we have to draw lines: to say, some weaknesses are inevitable, but this doesn't have to be one of them; to say, I have reached my limit for forgiveness, for transgressions against me and mine, and this is it; to say, I am done with you. Human justice, if that isn't an oxymoron, is as flawed and fickle an instrument as its executors, but in the end, it's all we have, because we are all we have: there is nothing else. Whatever higher purpose we might believe in, whatever faith we might have, or not have, in some final dead day of reckoning, when Ma'at weighs our souls or Charon plucks the cold coins from our eyes, here and now, there is no unequivocal spiritual presence but what other humans claim to hear and feel; and if we are truly mediums for higher voices, in this capacity, we are still just as flawed – just as fallible – as we are in every other sphere of our mortal existence.
And I wrestle with that. Not with the idea that we might be poor spiritual vessels – I'm an atheist, and always have been – but with the inevitability of human error. Because I'm not a misanthrope; I don't believe our species is fundamentally doomed or bad or broken. And yet, with screamworthy regularity and repetition, we hurt ourselves. We punish and exclude and torture and misconstrue; we continue to both tell and swallow lies all the more pernicious for their having been disproved a thousand times over; we willingly inhabit systems whose cruelties continue to shape us even as we once shaped them, and which can no more be dismantled by the individual than a single bee can demolish a hive, and that should terrify us; but instead, we shrug as though we expect nothing better, as though we're only capable of a collective, humane memory when it means making rituals of our worst ideas; as though we can have no mutable traditions, nor enduringly gentle ones. By profession and inclination, I am a critic, which means I spend an enormous amount of energy discussing various human faults, and yet the act of criticism is, I think, fundamentally hopeful: why bother with deconstruction if you think we can never rebuild? I'm not a nihilist, either, some bitter Rorschach incapable of compromising, even in the face of Armageddon: whatever I feel on my bad days, I don't believe I'm yelling into a void. Or I mean, I do, but only where void is a synonym for internet, this great greyscale maw into which we tumble our collective psyches, bruising as we bruise.
The problem with people is, we have a finite capability to give a shit about every other person, just as they have a finite capacity to give a shit about us. We're just too goddamn numerous, and some of us are actively trying, and some of us just ran out of caring three asshats ago, and some of us are happy being those three asshats if it means we get left in relative peace for five fucking minutes, and all that could still describe any of us in the space of a given hour, because we're mercurial creatures, too, and however much we want to put our backs to the firm and towering wall of Other People Are Fucking Wrong, it only takes a single mistake to turn us into them, and then we're the ones who are Fucking Wrong, and the wall falls on us in direct proportion to how hard we've been leaning on it, and sometimes it's irony, and sometimes it's justice, and sometimes it's just random chance – which is to say, both and neither, and part of life – but either way, it doesn't hurt any less for being inevitable.
Ideologies be damned: we find our truths where we can, and break them if we must, and sometimes our best is a toxic wasteland, and sometimes our worst is a poem. I'm sick of feeling adrift, of twisting myself into endless shapes to accommodate the fear that someone, somewhere might hate me for trying to figure things out, when far more terrifying is the great seething mass of strangers who don't even know what stories are, or why they matter. This is my anchor: at nine or ninety, I'm here to learn.
I'm here. I'm here. I'm here.
Supernatural: Thoughts
Posted: June 18, 2014 in Critical Hit
Tags: Broken Birds, Criticism, Dean Winchester, Gender, Manpain, Masculinity, Men, Meta, Misha Collins, Queerbaiting, Racism, Sam Winchester, Sexism, Supernatural, Thoughts, TV
Spoiler warning: All The Spoilers for Supernatural. All of them.
Exposing yourself to certain fandoms on tumblr is like signing up for a bout with Stockholm syndrome: sooner or later, you're going to drink the Kool-Aid. And by "drink the Kool-Aid", I mean "become obsessed with Supernatural", which – surprise!* – is exactly what happened to me. I mean, I knew all about the sexism, the queerbaiting, the manpain; about the woeful representation of POC. I vowed, on the public internets, that I would never watch it – and in a universe without tumblr, I may well have done just that. But slowly, steadily, like dripping water eroding stone, the steady flow of GIFs, photosets and soulful meta wore down my resistance. Surely, I told myself, I ought to at least watch the pilot, just so I can say that I gave it a fair shot. So I did – and I wasn't impressed. I even livetweeted my endeavour, complete with scathing criticism. The portrayal of women was so ludicrous, and Dean Winchester so obnoxious, that I didn't make it much more than halfway through the first episode before giving up, and for a while, that was that: I'd tried Supernatural, I hadn't liked it, end of story.
Despite myself, I found that I wanted to know what happened next. Enough of my friends whose taste in shows I either shared or respected had been surprised by my reaction – had vouched for the worthiness of at least the first five seasons, despite the acknowledged problematic elements – that I started to waver. Had I been judging too harshly? My curiosity was piqued, but in the end, what tipped the balance wasn't the recommendations of friends or the writings of strangers: it was this speech by Misha Collins – which, yes, I encountered via tumblr – in which he calls out the show's writers for their needless use of sexist language and misogynistic tropes. Just the fact that one of the main actors was willing to both acknowledge the problem and speak about it went a long way towards reassuring me that Collins, at least, was someone whose work I wanted to support. So I made my decision: I'd give Supernatural another try, endeavouring to make it to at least Season 4, when Castiel – played by Collins – finally makes an appearance.
This decision was roughly equivalent to taking a second hit of heroin because the first one hasn't kicked in yet.
As promised, Supernatural has a lot of problems – and I mean, a lot. (As, indeed, does heroin.) There's scarcely a male character on the show whose defining emotional arc doesn't hinge on his having lost his mother, wife/girlfriend and/or children, and scarcely a female character with an emotional connection to Sam or Dean Winchester who hasn't been fridged in order to give them more angst (though in fairness, the male death toll is similarly high). Overwhelmingly, the POC characters are either exoticised, stereotyped and/or played as villains, while the queerbaiting is made all the more frustrating by the overall lack of actual queer characters. The sexist language, too, is omnipresent: if you made a drinking game of it, and took a shot whenever someone says bitch, whore, or explicitly codes weakness as female ("no chick flick moments") and strength as male ("sack up!"), you would end up drunk after any given episode. Throughout nine seasons, but especially in the first three, almost every female character either falls squarely into one of four categories – Victim (dead or damselled), Virgin (pure and protectable), Vixen (sexy and strong) or Virago (angry and strong) – or straddles their intersections with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. Supernatural is, quite categorically, a show about straight white manpain as facilitated by dead ladies and magic – and if that were all it was, I'd never have made it through two full seasons, let alone nine.
It is also a show with a sprawling, complex mythology that nonetheless manages to stay coherent and engaging as it develops. Like The X Files, it has a deft touch with humour, poking fun at its own meta and idiosyncrasies at least as often as it takes itself seriously. It strikes a solid balance between stand-alone episodes and extended arcs, and the characters – well, that's where things get interesting. Because for all that the Winchesters are frequently situated as being traditionally masculine, even hypermasculine heroes, this isn't their be-all, end-all.
In fact, there's an argument to be made that Dean – whose love of classic rock, classic cars, weapons, whiskey and women makes him about as stereotypically masculine as it's possible to be – is also an active subversion of the very masculinity he ostensibly personifies. Sometimes, this comes across as being an unintentional – but still canonical – consequence of queerbaiting: that is, of the show's habit of putting (presumably) straight characters in homoerotic situations, or strongly implying a homoerotic subtext, without ever crossing the line into overt displays of queerness. But this practice, while deeply frustrating, also feels like a very real reflection of, and reaction to, the show's conflicting fanbases, and to the sheer impossibility of pleasing them both – namely, of the schism between (predominantly) male viewers who tune in for the adventures of Fiercely Hetereosexual Warrior Dean Winchester, the epitome of maleness in a show that is very definitely All About Dudes, and (predominantly) female viewers who tune in for Tortured Bisexual Dean Winchester, a good man who is eighteen kinds of broken and quite clearly in love with an angel. (Or his brother. Or both. Whatever.) Uncharitably, the queerbaiting is a way of firmly committing to the former fanbase while giving the latter just enough hope to keep them invested. More charitably, it's a way of trying to please both groups equally without doing anything that either camp could construe as unforgivable. Most likely, it's a combination of both, which, when combined with the conservative homophobia of network executives, tends to err on the side of default straightness. Whatever the answer, Dean Winchester remains a complex enough character to defy easy categorisation – and intentionally or not, even without the problem of queerbaiting, his version of masculinity as portrayed on the show is worth interrogating; as, indeed, is Sam's.
Right from the outset, the Winchester brothers are set up as being, if not total opposites, then temperamentally opposed. The first time I tried to watch the pilot, Dean came across as brash, obnoxious and full of himself, while Sam, whose initial distance from hunting provides the audience with an introduction to the concept, feels more sympathetic: a nice, normal guy being dragged into danger and tragedy by an uncaring sibling. But as the season – as the show – progresses, it soon becomes clear that things aren't what they seem. Dean's arrogance is, very explicitly, a coping mechanism, and even in Season 1, we can see the cracks. Sam, by contrast, is highly – and successfully – compartmentalised, able to set aside his past and live normally in ways that Dean just can't. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the comparison of Dean's attempt to live a normal life at the end of Season 5 and Sam's attempt to do likewise at the end of Season 7. When Dean leaves, Sam is imprisoned in hell, having first extracted a promise that Dean won't try to rescue him. Dean accedes, and goes to live with Lisa, his ex-girlfriend, and her young son, Ben – his reward for having stopped the apocalypse. But Dean, by his own admission, is a mess: he is tormented by Sam's loss, suffering from recurrent nightmares and flashbacks as well as survivor's guilt. When the hunting world impinges on his new life, his relationship with Lisa irreparably breaks down as he begins to exhibit the classic symptoms of PTSD: hyper-vigilance, obsessive behaviour, aggression as a fear response, and a compulsive need to control both his environment and the actions of his loved ones. Sam, however, suffers from no such baggage, despite the fact that he doesn't know if Dean is alive or dead. He makes a new life for himself with ease, and while he does talk to his new partner, Amelia, about having "lost" his brother, it's clear he isn't psychologically damaged in the way that Dean is.
In fact, the only time we really see Sam undergo this level of distress in response to trauma – nightmares, impulsive behaviour, rage – in a context that isn't directly related to his burgeoning demon powers is very early in Season 1, immediately following Jessica's death. Which begs the question: is Sam compartmentalised because it's an inherent part of his personality, or is it something he's learned – a coping mechanism, the same as Dean's bravado? I'd contend it's a combination of nature and practise. From what we learn of Sam's childhood in various flashback episodes, it's clear he's always harboured a burning desire to be normal, but it's equally clear that the same is true of Dean, too. Both brothers have suffered from their upbringing, but whereas Sam is clearly capable of cutting himself off from his family (running away as a teenager, going to college, moving in with Amelia), Dean can never manage it. Which is, quite arguably, the consequence of his being the older brother: Dean's entire life has revolved around protecting Sam and obeying his father, whereas Sam, who lacked those responsibilities, has a better baseline for normalcy – or at least, for self-definition in the absence of family and hunting – and therefore a better starting position from which to try and establish himself as a separate person. The Winchesters rely on each other, but while Sam depends on Dean as a person, Dean depends on Sam for his purpose, too.
Superficially, Sam is presented as being sensitive and emotional – and therefore the more stereotypically feminine of the two – while Dean is typed as tough and strong: a heroic masculine archetype. But in terms of their actual psyches, the opposite is true: Sam is compartmentalised, resilient and capable, while Dean is a wreck. Throughout the show, both brothers are repeatedly told by a slew of older men – hunters, angels and demons alike – to "stop whining" and "sack up" whenever they dwell on their problems. Any failure to do so, whether perceived or actual, is invariably criticised as being feminine, or derided by comparison to feminine behaviours. Yet at the same time, Dean's issues are real enough that the same people telling him to "be a man" are also, at various points, genuinely worried by his refusal to seek help or tell them what's wrong. The contradiction is not only striking, but deeply representative of the toxic burden of enforced, stereotypical masculinity. On the rare occasions when Dean does try and talk about his feelings, he is invariably mocked as weak, whiny and effeminate; but when, having absorbed these lessons, he tries to cope through drinking, self-destructive behaviour and suicidal thoughts, he is criticised – often angrily – for being an idiot. Sam likewise receives the same treatment, but to very different effect. Unlike Dean, who can't separate himself from his work, Sam's stress response is to leave whatever situation is upsetting him and calm down elsewhere – a much healthier approach, though one that also earns him rebuke. Time and again, when Sam gets angry, feels betrayed or is otherwise shown to be under pressure, he leaves, turning his back on his (undeniably damaged) family and ignoring other responsibilities in favour of self-care. That he is often cast as selfish, untrustworthy, traitorous and insensitive for doing this – presumably on the basis that Real Men don't run from their problems or let their friends down, ever, no matter the personal cost – is part and parcel of the same toxic logic that romanticises male self-sacrifice and silence.
For all that Supernatural can and does act as a paean to the virtues of traditional masculinity – brotherhood, battle, stoicism, strength – whether intentionally or not, it just as frequently demonstrates why this mindset is brutally flawed, with the worst psychological consequences of investing in its mythos – repression, loneliness, self-hatred, addiction, suicidal ideation, insecurity, worthlessness – personified by Dean Winchester. Unlike countless action movie heroes who drink their whiskey, kill the bad guys and stride manfully into the sunset without ever flinching, Dean drinks excessively to the point of attracting comment, has nightmares about his actions, and has to be rescued from danger at least as often as he does the rescuing, because half the time, his "act first, think later" policy is a self-destructive impulse rather than an actual plan. Almost, you could define the split in the Supernatural fandom as being between those who think Dean Winchester is someone to be idolised for his masculinity, and those who see him as needing help. And even now, I still can't tell if Dean's relationship with traditional masculinity is deliberately portrayed as compounding his traumas to the point of causing new ones, or if its implications have been hidden from the writers by cognitive dissonance and/or social conditioning. Given the number of creative voices involved, I suspect it's both, depending on the episode – but either way, it makes for some interesting analysis.
As a duo, what makes Sam and Dean so compelling is the extent to which their personalities, strengths and weaknesses differ, not just from each other, but from first appearances. Particularly in the early seasons, much is made of Sam's ability to successfully comfort the many grieving strangers they encounter, whereas Dean is always blunt, less adept – and less willing – to tailor his approach to the person, a contrast we're initially inclined to see as proof of Sam's sensitivity and Dean's rudeness. And certainly, Sam is a caring person. But as the show progresses, his interactions become less a function of compassion and more the consequence of his being a better liar than Dean, with fewer compunctions about emotionally manipulating strangers to get the information he needs. When it comes to informational lies – credit card scams, adopting fake IDs – Sam tends to be uneasy with the deception in ways that Dean isn't; but while Dean is happy pretending to be someone else, he doesn't fake his emotional reactions. Broadly speaking, Dean is a situational liar and emotionally honest, while Sam is an emotional liar and situationally honest – the exact opposite of how they present.
When it comes to their relationships with women, however, another curious comparison presents itself. Without wanting to overanalyze the handful of sex scenes sprinkled throughout the show, it's notable that Dean's encounters, in contrast to his aggressively masculine persona, tend to be romantic, even gentle, with Dean himself often shown to be the more passive partner, while Sam is assertive and dominant to the point of being rough (as more than one person has noticed). Dean has slept with angels; Sam lies down with demons. And for most of the show, that's not just a metaphor: the big reveal of Season 5 – that Sam is meant to be Lucifer's vessel, while Dean is earmarked for Michael – is arguably foreshadowed by their earlier romantic pairings with Ruby and Anna, respectively. But as of the most recent season, their predestined dichotomy is turned on its head: Season 9 starts with Sam being possessed by an angel, and ends with Dean turning into a demon, a deliberate subversion that shows how far Sam has come, and how far Dean has fallen. The Winchesters have been to Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, but despite the implied promise of the lyrics to Carry On Wayward Son, they're yet to find any peace.
What really gets me about Dean Winchester, though, is his status as the most broken of Broken Birds I've ever encountered – and in a show where so much else about the gender roles is regressive, it's striking that the most ostensibly masculine character is one who's best defined by a trope that's overwhelmingly female-dominated. In this sense, Dean actually makes for a good case study about our perceptions of gender in stories; specifically, our tendency to hold female characters to higher standards than men, not only in terms of their actions and personalities, but in how we judge whether they're three-dimensional or poorly-drawn tropes, and our corresponding tendency to assume male competence as a default. Right from the outset, and despite being situated as the more experienced hunter, Dean is – not ineffectual by any stretch of the imagination, but prone to the kind of error which, were he a woman, would likely be counted as signs of inherent weakness.
In the first four episodes of Season 1, for instance, Dean continuously fails to establish his fake identities with any degree of success: twice, he gets in trouble with officials who call his bluff, and twice his incompetence leads to civilians detecting the lie. In 1.1 (Pilot) and 1.4 (Phantom Traveller), it's Sam, not Dean, who kills the Big Bad, and while he saves the child in 1.3 (Dead in the Water), the offending ghost is dispelled, not through his actions, but the self-sacrifice of another character. The only monster Dean kills is the titular villain of 1.2 (Wendigo), and in 1.4, he's actively disarmed by his fear of flying. All of which is paired with a high degree of sentimentality: in both 1.2 and 1.3, Dean is visibly flustered by a simple kiss on the cheek, while his strongest emotional connection consists of his bonding with a child over their mutual loss of a parent. Under identical conditions, a female character would, I suspect, have to work much harder to be seen as competent: her failed bluffs would be seen as failures of intelligence compounded by a poor kill rate, while her visible terror would see her pegged as overly emotional. Which is what happens, when successive generations of terrible female characterisation condition viewers to infer the presence of gendered stereotyping on the basis of normal behavioural cues: there's such a backlog of bullshit to work through re the portrayal of women on screen, it can be hard to step back and judge new characters on their individual merits. But because Dean Winchester is not just male, but overtly masculine, wrapped in a leather jacket and driving a Chevy Impala, we trust that he knows what he's doing, even when we'd be well within our grounds to think the opposite.
I have more to say, but I'll save it for another post, as this one is already considerably longer than planned. Apparently I have Feelings about Supernatural that demand expression, and that, right there, is a sentence I never, ever thought I'd be writing. TUMBLR, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ME?
*Or not, for anyone who's been following my tumblr/Twitter presence for the past few weeks.
Buffy Rewatch: Relationships
Tags: Angel, Buffy, Crackship, Criticism, Narrative, Parker, Rape, Relationships, Rewatch, Riley, Romance, Sexual Assault, Spike, Stories, Thoughts, TV, Xander
"You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love 'till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other 'till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains, children, it's blood – blood screaming inside of you to work its will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
– Spike, Lover's Walk (S3E8)
To me, the above quote is one of the single best speeches in all of Buffy – it might even be my personal favourite. In his lone appearance in S3, Spike is forced into a brief alliance with Buffy and the newly-returned Angel, and instantly sees through their claims to be "just friends". Superficially, then, his response is not only the emotional denouement of the episode, but a comment on their relationship.
Only, here's the thing: Buffy and Angel do become friends. Their love has already reached its big romantic climax. Buffy has fought with Angelus, not Angel; they've only had sex once (the events of I Will Remember You are reversed, and therefore don't count); and though they argue down the line, they don't ever hate each other. The relationship Spike is describing doesn't exist.
Or rather, it does – but not between Buffy and Angel. This entire speech is a neat foreshadowing of everything that happens between Buffy and Spike. They're not friends; they never were. Buffy dies being loved by Spike – he collapses in grief at the loss – and then later, after she says she loves him, Spike dies for Buffy in turn. They fight and shag constantly through S6 – sometimes simultaneously – and frequently state their hatred for one another before then: in fact, this is the exact progression of events in Smashed and Wrecked, when they first have sex. In Dead Things, we even see them stand on opposite sides of the same door, reaching for each other, each one yearning against their better judgement – blood screaming inside them to work its will, while Out Of This World by Bush plays eerily in the background. When it comes to Buffy, Spike is unashamedly love's bitch. This speech will never not be about them.
Buffy and Spike is my crackship. Not because they're impossible together, but because they should be – and because, like crack, they're unhealthily addictive.
Their relationship is every possible flavour of fucked up. From the moment Spike first shows up in S2, they're enemies – but when Angelus tries to end the world, it's Spike who helps Buffy defeat him. In S4, despite their mutual loathing, we go down the rabbit hole of their relationship twice – once in Something Blue, when Willow's magic forces them together, and then again in Who Are You, where Faith flirts with Spike while wearing Buffy's body, and we realise he's equal parts angry and aroused at the prospect. In Goodbye Iowa, he even refers to Buffy as Goldilocks – a term of endearment he uses again in S6's Gone, when the usage prompts Buffy to cut her hair short. But it's not until S5's Out of My Mind that he realises he loves her: a dream-revelation that throws him awake with a whispered, "Oh god, no. Please, no." (Love isn't brains, children.)
Some of what Spike does is deeply gross (the Buffybot) or outright indefensible (his abortive rape attempt) – and yet, I keep coming back to their relationship; as broken and dysfunctional as it is, it's nonetheless compelling. Even now, I still can't decide whether every loving, useful thing Spike does while unsouled – withstanding torture to protect Dawn, fighting on Buffy's side, comforting her when nobody else even knows what's wrong – either outweighs or is outweighed by those two awful, terrible things. Because, here's the thing: we don't blame Angel for the crimes he commits as Angelus. His soulless personality is so different to his human one that it's easy to view them as a flipswitch binary: he's either one or the other. Angel has a romantic relationship with Buffy; Angelus wants to torture, abuse and kill her. But Spike is much more ambiguous. His emotional evolution starts while he's still unsouled, to the point where loving Buffy prompts him to get his soul back. He's so horrified by his actions in Seeing Red – the rape attempt – that, in his own words, he makes himself into the man she deserves: someone whose conscience would render him incapable of sexual violence.
And I just… OK. It's impossible, literally impossible, to get away from the rape attempt (though apparently the fact that Xander did the same thing in S1's The Pack is both forgiven and forgotten). You can't ignore or downplay it, and while you can try and contextualise it for the purposes of discussing both Spike's character and his relationship with Buffy, that still doesn't change what he did. Thematically, though, there's something significant in the fact that Spike stops himself – that he regains himself mid-assault, realises what he's doing, and goes immediately to get his soul back. Because when Angel turns into Angelus after he and Buffy sleep together, the whole narrative becomes a metaphor for the fact that sometimes, men change once they've slept with you – they turn into monsters, and you're left to pick up the pieces. It's a theme that's reiterated when Parker turns out to be a colossal douche, and to a lesser extent, when Riley starts seeing vampire gals on the side. Men turn into monsters, but overwhelmingly in the Buffyverse, they refuse to acknowledge it – except for Spike, who not only admits what he is, but actively tries to change.
See, the problem with Angel/Angelus being two extremes of a binary personality is that Angel is never held accountable (or at least, not by Buffy) for the things he does as Angelus. We never see him apologise: not for the way he treats her while evil, not for Miss Calendar's death, none of it. Despite the fact that Angel's whole redemptive arc is predicated on actively atoning for his vampire crimes, he still behaves as though it was all beyond his control. He doesn't apologise for what he does to Buffy, because he's not the one who did it – yet even if we consider that to be technically true, it still seems reasonable to expect him to seek forgiveness. Parker, however, has no such excuse: he's a classic user, a weasel who avoids responsibility for his actions by claiming his motives were always obvious – that Buffy, or whichever girl he's left broken-hearted, has simply misunderstood him. And then there's Riley, whose response to being caught cheating is to issue an unbelievably selfish ultimatum: either Buffy can decide immediately that she still wants him around, in which case he'll make an effort to earn back her trust, or she can stay angry and lose him forever. The speech that Xander gives Buffy at this point to convince her that Riley ought to stay is infuriating. He's 1% right, in the sense that fairness doesn't enter into it – Riley has given her an ultimatum, and as sucky as that is, she can't abstain from making a decision – but given how incredibly shitty a thing Riley's done by putting her in that position, he really doesn't deserve Xander's understanding; he certainly doesn't deserve Buffy's. And despite his denials, it's clear his real issue with Buffy is her greater strength: she didn't need his protection, he felt insecure as a result, and when presented with an easy out – flying away to the Amazon if his demands weren't met, instead of staying to make things right – he takes it.
And then there's Spike.
He apologises for the Buffybot; he openly admits that he's a monster. After his assault on Buffy, the first thing he does is try to redeem himself, because unlike every other man she's ever slept with, he admits he's done something wrong, and that he, Spike, is the culprit. And it's not silent redemption, either: the guilt drives him mad, and when he comes back at the start of S7, not only the audience, but Buffy herself is left in no doubt that what he's done – regaining his soul – has been an act of atonement: that he's given himself a conscience, punished himself physically and mentally, and returned with no expectation of forgiveness to offer what help he can. And that, I think, despite everything, is at the core of why I keep coming back to Buffy and Spike's relationship, why I can't let go of it: as brutally fucked up as their history is, and despite the fact that Spike's assault is arguably* the worst thing any partner has ever done to her, he's also the only parter to accept responsibility for his actions, and to try and directly atone for them. Spike learns because of Buffy; he becomes a better man – or a better monster – through loving her, and I don't think that's true of any of the others; even Angel.
And speaking of Angel: sit down and think for a moment about the basis for their relationship. S1 is only twelve episodes long. Angel doesn't appear in all of them, and most of the time, his presence is fleeting. He and Buffy don't even kiss until episode 7, and two episodes later, we're meant to believe he's in love with her – and while we later learn he's been watching her quietly ever since she was called (which is incredibly creepy and stalkerish), the short timeframe strongly implies that her love of him is a youthful infatuation, at least initially. They're together for a while, but a bit more than halfway through S2, he turns evil, and Buffy sends him to hell. When he returns in S3, he isn't back on the field (so to speak) until about episode 7 – prior to that, he's recovering. Though they get back together soon afterwards, when Joyce speaks to Angel about the "hard choices" he and Buffy have ahead of them, he breaks it off with her – and as sensible as that decision ultimately is, the way he goes about it doesn't sit well with me. However immature Buffy was at the start of their relationship, she's grown up enormously by that point, and instead of treating her like an adult – someone capable of knowing her own mind and making her own decisions – he takes the choice away from her, effectively dumping her for her own good. This is something he does again by returning in S4 without letting her know he's there, and it's also something we later see Riley do, too: indulging in paternalistic, overprotective behaviour despite her superior strength and emotional autonomy.
A sidenote here about Xander: I cannot even begin to express how much it bothers me that his rape attempt from S1's The Pack is never addressed in the narrative. Despite remembering everything he did while under the influence of the hyena spirit, Xander feigns amnesia in order to dodge the consequences of his actions, putting him on the same page as Angel, Parker and Riley. Never mind the fact that, at this point – which is to say, four episodes into the first season – he and Buffy have known each other for all of a month or so, and that realistically, if a guy you'd known for such a short amount of time sexually assaulted you while in an altered state, it ought to make you wary of him afterwards at the very least. But this doesn't happen, which I take to be an enormous failure on the part of the writers. The fact that Spike's assault is more forceful then Xander's doesn't detract from the vileness of the sentiment – nor, indeed, from the fact that, whereas Spike regains his senses mid-struggle and stops himself, Xander has to be physically incapacitated by Buffy. But despite the difference in their demonic aspects – Xander is possessed by a hyena spirit, while Spike is soulless – the two states nonetheless appear to be rather similar, in that both are guided by primal urges while still retaining their base personalities. It therefore seems a telling sign of Xander's status as a Nice Guy that, whereas Spike seeks redemption for what he's done while still soulless, Xander doesn't so much as apologise even when back to normal. Xander, it seems, has less decency at times than someone who physically lacks a conscience.
Which is, I think, the best definition for vampirehood in the Buffyverse. Becoming a vampire invests you with bloodlust and demonic strength while stripping you of your conscience: what's left is who you were before, but influenced by power and hunger and unfettered by consequences, which is the perfect explanation for Spike. In S5's Crush, he's implicitly likened to Quasimodo – a troubled outsider whose love for Esmerelda (that is, Buffy) can never be reciprocated, because his motivations in pursuing her are purely selfish – and yet, in the same conversation, we're also invited to sympathise with him, for the sake of the effort he makes. Spike's soullessness means that he's without conscience, but unlike Quasimodo, he tries to grow one, and eventually succeeds by regaining his soul – but this being something of a chicken and egg dilemma, his attempts prior to that are equal parts creepy, misguided and genuinely touching. He makes a shrine to Buffy, furnished with clothes and photos stolen from her house. He tells her about Riley out of a mix of self-interest and real concern, but when he realises how deeply she's been hurt by it, we see him express contrition and empathy. In S5's Triangle, we even see him rehearsing apologies, complete with a dented box of chocolates. In Crush, he threatens her with death at Drusilla's hands unless she confesses being attracted to him, but at the same time acknowledges how wrong his own feelings are. And when Glory captures and tortures him, he withholds the secret of Dawn's identity at great personal cost, because he knows how much her loss would hurt Buffy. Without recourse to a conscience, he's pulled in different directions at once, trying to do the right thing but failing at least as often as he succeeds. The demon in him is selfish, lustful and possessive, but the good man, the poet, so long dormant, is fighting for control.
And then there's the issue of the Buffybot. More than once in the course of the show, a character spurned or crossed in love resorts to magic or science as a way to regain control: Xander once, with his wildly destructive love spell in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered; Warren twice, first with his own robot, April, and then with the enslavement, attempted rape and actual manslaughter of Katrina; Willow twice, first with her abortive attempt to curse Oz and Veruca, and then with her erasure of Tara's memory; and Spike twice, once with his abortive plan to cast a love spell on Drusilla, and then again with the Buffybot. (And that's before you count Anya's work as a vengeance demon.) As skeevy and gross as the two sexbots are, for my part, I find them vastly less disturbing than Xander's attempt to actually put Cordelia in his power – at least the robots aren't real people. (We see from the Buffybot's point of view in one episode, which was mechanical enough to convince me it lacks true sentience.) In fact, Xander's spell is uncomfortably close to Warren's plans for Katrina, in that both men actually used magic to try and control their ex-girlfriends; the fact that Xander never killed or raped anyone doesn't put him that much ahead of the game when you consider not only how narrow his escape was, but the fact that he's never really penalised for it. By contrast, Spike abandons his plan to curse Drusilla when he realises their split is his fault, not hers, an epiphany that Xander never has, and which stands as yet another instance of Spike admitting his faults and learning from his behaviour when other, ostensibly more moral characters fail to do so under similar circumstances.
There is, I suspect, a rather awful reason for this – and, indeed, for why Spike alone of all Buffy's lovers and love interests accepts responsibility for his actions. It's all down to narrative impetus: we, the viewers, are meant to sympathise with Xander, just as we're meant to sympathise with Angel and Riley. At base, we "know" they're all good guys, and as such, their contrition is implied. We don't need to see them apologise, because the surrounding story is structured to suggest that they've already been forgiven off-camera. But Spike, by contrast, begins as a villain. His developmental arc is the most dramatic and varied in the whole show, culminating in a radical heel face turn at the end of S6. We need to see his redemption, because otherwise, there's no reason to believe that it's taken place – and to an extent, this makes sense: if the audience can reasonably infer that something has happened, then it's a waste of script and wordage to insert it. The problem is that, if the good guys never apologise on screen, then their goodness is called into question – which is why the most fucked up relationship in the whole show is simultaneously the most equitable. Neither Buffy nor the audience can assume anything about Spike's intentions that we aren't actually shown, and as a result, he has to work the hardest out of anyone to be seen as good.
Thus: when Angelus is trying to end the world, Spike is trying to save it. When Xander is busy making threats and lying, Spike is saving Giles and keeping his promises. When Riley is out paying lady vamps to bite him, or sulking because Buffy's had the temerity to put her own need to be strong ahead of his need to feel manly and protective, Spike is telling her the truth and offering quiet, undemanding support. When Willow and the others are smothering the newly resurrected Buffy, Spike gives her an out. And when absolutely everyone betrays her at the end of S7, it's Spike alone who keeps faith with her. From villain to invalid to lovelorn drunk; from glowering menace to chaotic, defanged outsider; from frenemy to lover to ex; from assailant to madman to stalwart, both Spike's personality and his relationship with Buffy undergo the most development in the whole show. He's done some truly awful things, but when it really matters and everyone else has abandoned her, it's always Spike, and Spike alone, who's there to watch her back.
*I say arguably, because Angelus's crimes are pretty horrific, too, and YMMV in terms of which you consider to be worse overall: there's no sliding scale for evil, no definitive catalogue with which to determine their heinousness objectively.
Buffy Rewatch: Random Thoughts
Tags: Angst, BtVS, Buffy, Criticism, Dawn, Joss Whedon, Narrative, POC, Racefail, Stories, Tara, Thoughts, TV
Some thoughts on Buffy, in no particular order.
There's an alternating pattern to the season finales/big bads that I've never noticed before: it switches back and forth between a massive, apocalyptic threat that's billed as such from the outset, and personal vendettas that slowly develop into something more dangerous. S1 is the Master (apocalypse); S2 starts out as Spike and Dru, but culminates with Angelus (personal); S3 is the Mayor (apocalypse); S4 starts out with Spike, but culminates with Adam and the Initiative (personal); S5 is Glory (apocalypse); S6 starts out with the Trio, but culminates in Dark Willow (personal); and S7 is the First Evil (apocalypse).
And the thing is, off the top of my head, I can't think of another show that does this. Overwhelmingly, modern TV series seem obsessed with the notion that each successive season finale has to be bigger than the last, which eventually leads to melodrama and the collapse of the show, because you can only go so big before things get ludicrous (the Doctor Who reboot being a case in point). Which isn't to say that Buffy doesn't escalate – it does. But it does so gradually, interspersing the big events with more intimate drama, and that's something I really appreciate about it. Apart from aiding character development, it establishes a strong narrative rhythm and builds the tension season by season without ever making the constant danger feel monotone. I wish more shows did the same thing, or at least mixed it up a bit.
I hate Tara's family. I hate them with a passion I reserve for few things in the Buffyverse, because for a show that's all about fighting Evil with a capital E, there's really a lot of moral ambiguity going on. Should we forgive Angel for the crimes he committed while Angelus on the grounds that he lacked a conscience and was therefore effectively a different person, or do we hold him accountable for everything he ever did? And if we forgive him, do we then forgive Spike his trespasses while unsouled on the same grounds, even though he was capable of enough actual goodness in the same state that he arguably should've known better? And so on, and so forth – the point being, however, that Tara's family are monstrous without the excuse of actually being monsters. They raise her to believe she's evil and demonic purely as a means of keeping a leash on her; she stutters and cringes around them, and the big reveal as to why they spent nineteen years trying to break her spirit? Then men in her family want her home, to cook and clean and keep house for them, because they're misogynist, sexist asshats. Which makes me want to STAB ALL THE THINGS.
As a corollary of the above: the episodes I find hardest to watch – the ones that provoke an actual, bodily response in me, so that I have to squinch* away from the television – are all episodes about the abuse, abandonment and gaslighting tactics of friends and family. Ted, Dead Man's Party, Gingerbread, Family, Hell's Bells and Seeing Red all squick me in ways that other episodes just don't. Something I find intolerable both narratively and and in real life is false accusation: people being blamed or framed for something they didn't do, especially in a situation where their ability to respond or defend themselves is compromised. It makes me physically sick and furious, and so I struggle with these stories. I might well do a fuller examination of them later, especially Dead Man's Party, which is a special kind of fucked up.
Every single POC character in the show – and it's not like there are many – is either unlikeable or evil from the outset (Rona, Mr Trick), an ally who's eventually revealed to be morally ambiguous at best or traitorous at worst (Robin Wood, Forest), or someone whose ethnicity/accent is played for laughs prior to their death (Chao-Ahn, Kendra, Hus) – or sometimes a combination of all three (the Inca Mummy Girl). This is so incredibly shitty, I cannot even. As many others have said before me: Joss Whedon might be great at white feminism, but his racefail is spectacular.
As a character, Dawn is portrayed as annoying, juvenile, awkward and whiny, yet the reason for this is never really addressed. Early in S5, it's strongly implied that Buffy struggles to get along with Dawn because, despite her false memories of their childhood together, she doesn't actually have the personal development to go with it: even though she believes in their joint history, emotionally, she's still at step one. It's not until she learns that Dawn is the Key that Buffy is able to recognise her own irritation for what it is, and to try to curb it appropriately: the privilege of an only child grating at the sudden and jarring transition to sisterhood. But when Dawn realises what she is, the full ramifications are never addressed: that despite all her memories of growing up as a human girl, she's still emotionally an infant. By the end of S7, Dawn is only three years old in real time, and so has been on the emotional learning trajectory of a toddler while simultaneously going through all the angst and physical development of early adolescence. This has got to be the suckiest combination ever, and when you add in all the accompanying traumas she experiences in that time – learning her memories are false, the death of her mother, Willow's magic addiction, Tara's death, the death and resurrection of Buffy, the threat of removal by child protective services, multiple apocalypses and kidnappings – the fact that she's even vaguely well-adjusted at the end of it all is a fucking miracle.
So, yeah. Don't be so hard on Dawn. In a show where pretty much every character gets the absolute shit kicked out of them on a regular basis, she still gets an incredibly raw deal – but unlike everyone else, her pain is regularly dismissed in-show as teenage melodrama, even by characters whose own broken, demon-filled adolescences should've left them with more sympathy. And in return, we hate her for it.
More thoughts later!
*Squinch is a word I made up to describe the reaction I have to things that make me uncomfortable. It's a combination of squirm and flinch.
Some Thoughts On Reviewing
Tags: Arguments, Author, Bias, Books, Context, Contextualisation, Film, Goodreads, Issues, Narrative, Negative, Personal, Positive, Review, Reviewing, Story, Taste, Themes, Thoughts, Tone, Worldbuilding, Writing
Prompted by the current kerfuffle about book reviews on Goodreads, I've been thinking about what, for me, constitutes a good or useful review, and reached the conclusion that overall tone is vastly less important than the lucid contextualisation of arguments. By which I mean: when we react strongly to something – whether positively or negatively – that reaction is contextualised by our existing beliefs, morality, tastes and biases, none of which will necessarily be shared by anyone else, and without at least basic reference to which our reaction will not be useful or even comprehensible to others. For instance: say I have a strong aversion to sex scenes, a nonexistent interest in or knowledge of baseball, and a preference for stories which feature multiple points of view, and I unknowingly pick up a book where the characters have sex, talk constantly about their shared passion for baseball, and which has only one narrator. Clearly, the odds are stacked against my liking this book, and particularly if I've chosen it under the misapprehension that I'd enjoy it – say, for instance, because a well-meaning friend with an imperfect knowledge of my tastes recommended it to me – then chances are, I'm going to be disappointed. This does not, however, mean that the book itself is terrible (although it certainly might be) – just that I was entirely the wrong audience for it.
A good review, no matter how negative, will openly contextualise its biases for the reader: I don't like sex, baseball or single narrators, and therefore disliked these aspects of this book. A mediocre review will hint at these issues, but fail to state them clearly, such that a reader could easily mistake the reviewer's personal bugbears for objective criticism about structure and narrative flow: the sex scenes were unnecessary, all the baseball was boring and it would've benefited from multiple POVs. A bad review won't make any attempt to explain itself whatsoever – instead, it will simply react: this book is terrible, and I hate everything about it. To be clear, that last remark could well appear in a good or mediocre review as part of an opening gambit or conclusion; but in those instances, the reviewer would have also tried to distinguish their own hangups from whatever else they thought was wrong with the book, so that someone who didn't object to sex scenes or baseball and who enjoyed single narrator stories (for instance) would be able to make a reasoned judgement about whether or not to read it.
The same principle applies to positive reactions, too: a gushing review is useless if it fails to explain exactly what pleased the reviewer so much, or – just as importantly – if it doesn't state the reviewer's personal preferences. This is particularly relevant in instances where the presence of a beloved narrative element might cause the reviewer to ignore or overlook flaws which, were that element not present, might undermine their enjoyment. Personal taste is a balancing act, and one it pays to be aware of. For instance: I love trashy disaster movies like The Day After Tomorrow, Twister and The Core, all of which are ludicrous to varying degrees, and all of which contain noticeable plotfail of the kind which, in a different context, would have me ranting and raving the whole way home. I give disaster movies a pass because I expect them to be illogical; but if a similar species of illogic ever crops up in a fantasy film, my husband can vouch for the fact that I'll spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy dissecting it afterwards.
The point being, a good review doesn't just tell us about the story: it also tells us a bit about the reviewer, which lets us judge whether our tastes are roughly aligned with theirs – at least in this instance. After all, people are complex, and it's rare for any two people's likes and dislikes to always be in perfect alignment. A good review should function a bit like a Venn diagram, showing you the circle of the reviewer's relevant biases so you can put your own beside it and see how much – if at all – they overlap. Which isn't to say that a total absence of agreement is useless; all you have to do is reverse the judgement, like making a mental note that if Friend X says a particular film is terrible, then it's probably going to be awesome. (I mean, come on. We all have this friend.)
For me, a reviewer's tone is only important insofar as it helps me to contextualise their tastes. I tend to enjoy reviewers with an evident sense of humour, because it suggests to me that they're not above poking fun at the things they love; and as I don't always take things seriously, that can be as a refreshing change from earnest adoration. Which isn't to say that I never enjoy serious reviews – certainly, I tend to write them myself – only that I hold them to a slightly higher standard: comedic reviews can make for enjoyable reading even if their usefulness is limited, whereas straight reviews have nothing to recommend them but their usefulness, and should that be lacking, there isn't much point to them. That being said, I've little patience for comedic reviews that are more concerned with abstract jokes than actually making a point. Humour might help to emphasise a good argument, but it isn't a substitute for one, and in the case of negative reviews, it can sometimes feel like it's being deployed purely or primarily to conceal the reviewer's lack of relevant insight. A good review isn't simply about your gut reaction to a book: it's also an explanation as to why that reaction should matter to other people.
Which brings me to the subject of negative reviews in particular, and my personal approach to them. While I completely understand that some authors choose to refrain from posting negative reviews of their peers' work, this isn't something I feel comfortable with. The reason I review at all is to engage in conversation about a particular work, and the idea of abstaining from that simply because I tell stories as well as read them isn't one that appeals to me. It's important to note, however, that I'm not a big name author – quite the opposite, in fact – which means that, in the vast majority of instances, my public dislike of a book will have little to no impact on its sales, its general perception and the self esteem of the author. Should that situation ever change, I might well rethink my policy, or at least be extremely judicious about which books I review, because as much as I enjoy writing about stories, popularity (I think) comes with an inherent responsibility to use it, well… responsibly. And the thing about speaking to the mob – or fans, or readers, or any other large group people inclined to pay attention to you – is that you can't control its reactions, or account for the comprehension of its individual members. And while that doesn't preclude you from having opinions, it should certainly behoove you to consider what the negative consequences of voicing them might be.
But, I digress: for now, I'm a little-known author more widely recognised for her blogging than her books, which gives me comparative leeway to talk about the things I dislike without worrying that I might accidentally break someone else's career. (Even so, while I sometimes post positive reviews on my blog, I restrict any negative ones to Goodreads, which feels like the more appropriate place to put them. To me, this is a meaningful professional distinction: unless I actively want to cheerlead for a particular author – and sometimes I do – reviews, whether good or bad, belong on the review site. Simple as that.) And when I do write reviews, I always try to think about why I'm bothering. It's not my policy to review every single book that I read, or even a majority of them: I only do so is if there's something about a given story, be it good or bad, that seems to invite discussion. In instances where it's a negative thing, I try to be very certain about what, specifically, I'm objecting to. Am I morally outraged by something in the text? Does a particular character rub me the wrong way? Does either the plot or the worldbuilding have a hole in it? Is the writing style jarring, or does the author have narrative tic I find irksome? Is it a combination of factors, or just one thing in particular? It's important to stop and ask these questions, particularly if your emotional reaction is a strong one. Don't let the popularity of a book overly influence your critical judgement of it, either: by all means, be angry and flabbergasted that something you didn't enjoy is selling like hot cakes, but unless you're making a specific argument about successful trends in fiction, keep it out of the review – after all, you're trying to asses the book itself, not pass judgement on its readers. (And if your review is less about the strengths or failings of a work than it is about mocking its fans, then I'm going to count it unhelpful, and therefore bad.) And even if you are discussing narrative trends, blind anger at their existence is ultimately less useful than a lucid deconstruction of what they represent and why you find it problematic.
Ultimately, I think, a useful review – even a negative one – should invite conversation. If I dislike a book, I'll strive to say so in a way that opens the issue up for discussion; which isn't to say that I'll always succeed, only that I find the idea of actively trying to discourage discussion incredibly problematic. Making someone feel stupid for liking something – or not liking something – isn't an outcome that appeals to me: I'd much rather invite people with different opinions to contribute to the conversation than surround myself exclusively with like-minded people, whose agreement – while certainly flattering – does't teach me anything. Which is also why, on occasion, I'll actively seek out negative reviews of books I like: to see if other readers might have picked up on something problematic or interesting that I missed. I've had some genuine epiphanies about writing, narrative, implicit bias and tropes by doing this, and if you can bear to see something you love being criticized without wading in to defend it, I highly recommend giving it a try. But of course, it only works if the reviews you encounter are useful. They might be cheeky, snarky, serious, lighthearted, deadpan or investigative in tone, but so long as they contextualise their arguments, you could well be pleasantly surprised.
Posted: December 31, 2011 in Life/Stuff
Tags: 2011, 2012, Dalek, Doctor Who, Earthquake, Husband, Life, Moving, News, Norway, Occupy, Personal, Random, Thoughts, Tsunami, Year
And here we are again, on the cusp of another new year and the end of the old. For me personally, 2011 has been momentous, challenging, crazy, wonderful, strange, and a whole host of other adjectives. This year, I turned 25 – a quarter-century! – and moved from Australia to Scotland. My second book was released. I made new friends, started new projects, worked new jobs in a new country, discovered cooking, threw a surprise birthday party for my husband, traveled to France and Germany, read over 150 books, got involved with the local Feminist Society, blogged a lot, took masses of photos and drank an extraordinary amount of cider. Without wanting to sound twee, it's been a year when I've not only grown up a lot, but noticed myself growing, and in some instances consciously orchestrated the growth, as opposed to having random maturation thrust upon me by the eddying whims of adulthood. After so much blundering about, it does feel a little as though I've got myself together this year, or have, more specifically, got myself into a position from which next year can be confidently tackled – which, frankly, is a relief, because as the process has inevitably involved a certain amount of floundering, doubt and despair, it's nice to have something to show for it, however hypothetically.
Politically and environmentally, though, the world has been in turmoil. It's far from inaccurate to describe 2011 as a year of revolution: beginning with the myriad uprisings and calls for social justice known collectively as the Arab Spring, we've had rioting in the United Kingdom and the worldwide spread of the Occupy movement. There have been devastating earthquakes in New Zealand – the latest happening just this week – tsunami and nuclear meltdown in Japan, global financial instability, and the horrific rampage of Anders Breivik in Norway. At the level of society, 2011 has marked the passing of Steve Jobs, Anne McCaffrey and Amy Winehouse, among others – figures whose deaths have had an impact on both our landscapes cultural and emotional landscapes. Even if it hadn't already been notable as the first year of a new decade, 2011 has made its mark on history.
There are lots of reasons, then, to look forward to 2012 – social progress; political redemption; a fresh start; ongoing hopes for self-improvement; the challenge of unknown horizons; the simple satisfaction of peeling the first, crisp page off a new desk calendar. I have Ambitions, internets, and come tomorrow, I'd very much like to share them with you. But until then, I shall round out the year by sharing with you this picture of my husband dressed as a Doctor Who/Dalek hybrid. Because I can.
Posted: November 25, 2011 in Fly-By-Night
Tags: Criticism, Flawedness, Flaws, Homophobia, Like, Logic, Love, Messenger, People, Racism, Sexism, Shooting The Messenger, Shows, Stories, Things, Thoughts
Nothing is perfect. We all loved flawed things, and sometimes we love the flaws themselves as well as the things despite them. This does not stop us from taking personal offence when people not-us find flaws in our things, particularly when these aren't flaws we've ever noticed ourselves, and especially when the flaws are so offensive to our morals and aesthetics that, if we acknowledged their existence, we'd feel obligated to stop liking the thing all together.
Which is, basically, why most people don't like to be told that a thing they love is sexist or racist or homophobic in a particular way: because it creates an instantaneous and enormous sense of fury and guilt and betrayal. Sometimes, these emotions are rightly directed towards the people who made the things that way, but more often than not, we shoot the messenger. Dammit, I washappy liking my thing, and now you've ruined it for me! Or, worst of all, they deny the flaw and attack the flaw-finder, following a rage-logic that works roughly like this:
– I do not like racist/sexist/homophobic things; therefore
– nothing I like is racist/sexist/homophobic; because
– if it was, I'd be forced to stop liking it; but
– I can't just tell myself to stop loving a thing that I love; which means
– that if someone does tell me a thing I love is racist/sexist/homophobic, I must close my ears and ignore them; because
– if they're right, I'll be stuck forever loving a terrible thing, and if that has to happen; then
– I'd rather pretend I never knew it was terrible in the first place; because
– ignorance is bliss.
Which, yeah, no.
You remember that part where everything is flawed? Everything? Even the things we love most? Does this not suggest to you that we ought to critique those things more than others, even – or perhaps especially – because of how we love them, why we love them, the better to know them better? To see if they deserve our love? To see if we've chosen wisely?
Because the fact is that sometimes we won't choose wisely. And that can hurt to admit. The first time someone makes you realise a thing you love is sexist/racist/homophobic, it's easy to feel like a terrible person. It's also good that you do, too. Just for a little. Just a bit. Because sexism, racism and homophobia are far more terrible things than anything a flaw-finder ever did to hurt your aesthetic pride; and that feeling of guilt you have when someone points out what you've missed? That feeling is how you acknowledge that up until now, you haven't been paying attention.
The worst thing you can do after this point is avoid all critical discussion of the things you love for fear that other, unnoticed flaws might be pointed out, and your cosy sense of unflawedness further eroded. That it's too hard to ask questions of the things you love. That you'd rather just take everything at face value, and assume it's all meant for the best.
Don't be that person.
Please. Just, don't.
Instead, accept that the things you love are flawed. That you can revile one aspect of a thing while praising another. That sometimes broken things are broken in interesting ways. That some broken things can be mended, while others were never truly broken in the first place.
And that sometimes, it's the things we love that break our hearts, and that when that happens, we have to let them go.
This post also appeared here.
Free eBooks, Piracy & Secondhanding
Posted: October 22, 2011 in Critical Hit
Tags: Alan Baxter, Books, Content, Digital, DL, Downloading, eBooks, First-hand, Free, Libraries, Literary, Neil Gaiman, Parallel Economy, Piracy, Politics, Random, Reading, Second-Hand, Shops, Thoughts, Trade
Musing on ebook piracy and free downloads yesterday at Alan Baxter's blog, I made a passing comparison between the digital distribution of books, whether legally or illegally, and the sale of second-hand hardcopies. In both instances, neither author nor publisher makes money on the transaction, but whereas the former practice is almost invariably viewed as foolhardiness where legal and theft where not, the latter is viewed as a benevolent, even positive, parallel economy – and the more I think about this distinction, the more arbitrary it seems. If publishers and authors are concerned about losing revenue to piracy – that is to say, to the free transmission of their products and to reduced-price sales made by unrelated third parties in a digital context – then surely the natural system with which to draw comparisons is the physical second-hand market? Throw in data regarding library usage and loans between friends, and you're basically looking at the real-world equivalent of the digital DL ecosystem, viz: instances in which a single first-hand copy is read by multiple people, only one of whom pays money to the publisher.
This being so, if the mass availability of free or cut-price digital books is causing authors and publishers to lose out on revenue, then you'd expect that the combined presence of friendly loans, libraries and the second-hand market would be seen as having an identical (or at least similar) effect. After all, humans are quite a mercenary species: if we can have something cheaper or for free, then why would we pay full price? Or, put another way: if I can buy all my books second-hand, grab them at the library or borrow them from my friends, then why would I ever pay full price for the same product? Why would anyone?And yet the indisputable fact is that people – and I'd even go so far as to say a majority of people – do.
Here's an important question: how did you first discover your favourite authors? Did you stumble on them by accident, or pick them up cold in the bookshop? Did you read a good review and decide to check them out? Did a friend spruik their work or lend you a copy? Did you see their opus discounted or for second-hand sale and give them a try? Did you find them at the library? Did you follow their blog or Twitter and decide to read their books? Take a long, hard moment to think about it, because unless my own experiences are very much anomalous, the chances are that the first time you read a new author's work, you didn't pay full price for it. In fact, you may not even have paid at all. Going through my own bookshelves, I can vouch for the fact that almost every single author whose work I now collect or have ever bought religiously – Kate Elliott, Katharine Kerr, Terry Pratchett, Tamora Pierce, Robin Hobb, Sara Douglass, Anne McCaffrey, Neal Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Richelle Mead, Naomi Novik, Libba Bray and George R. R. Martin, to name but a few – first entered my awareness through free, loaned, library or second-hand copies. Douglass, Bray and Pierce all came from libraries; I bought second-hand editions of their early works, then expanded to buying first-hand when I could afford it. Elliott, Kerr, Pratchett, Hobb, Martin and Novik all started as second-handers. Stephenson was a loaned to me – in fact, I'm currently reading a friend's copy of Anathem – while I won my first Mead book in a contest. My first McCaffrey was a gift, and followed by much second-handing before I ever bought her works new.
But Gaiman is arguably the most interesting test case, not only because of his favourable stance on piracy and free books, but because his is the instance that links us back to the digital world. Because when I turned eighteen, a friend's birthday gift to me was a CD containing an illegal, ripped version of the complete Sandman, which I read voraciously and loved in my first year of college. As a direct result of this, not only do I now own all of Gaiman's novels, but whereas the pirate CD has long since vanished down the back of a couch, I have since acquired the complete Sandman in brilliant, first-hand hardcopy – the same way that I've bought or been given all his other books.
So why, in all these instances, did I switch to paying full price? There were – and are – a number of reasons. Some, as you might expect, are mercenary when taken in isolation: for instance, though it was easy to find older books second-hand, it was simply more expedient to buy later volumes new than wait for used copies to hit the market. Aesthetically, too, a new copy tends be better looking and sturdier than a second-hand equivalent, and, in the case of Sandman, preferable in terms of both quality and physicality to a digital rip. But those are all pragmatic concerns: what changed – what mattered – is that I loved the stories, and therefore wanted the best possible copies as quickly as possible. I wanted to support the authors, because I wanted them to keep writing, and because there was no longer any question that their books might not be worth the money.
But wait! I hear you cry. That doesn't apply to the digital realm at all! Is there really so much of a difference between a ripped PDF and an official ebook that readers would pay for a better edition? If the accessibility problem is the same – if it's a choice between clicking one button for free, and one to pay, for essentially the same product – then what advantage does a first-hand copy have?
To which I say:
Firstly, if there's no difference between a ripped PDF and an official ebook, then possibly there should be. The onus is on publishers to make their product unique – to reward digital first-hand purchasers with pretty content the same way that gorgeous hardcopies do. What about the addition of features that only work on one or a limited number of devices, so that a ripped version would be less special than an original? What about ease of use, where legitimate acquisitions are easier to make – and certainly available more quickly – than their illegal equivalents? What about digital bundling with hardcopy editions? These are all considerations that the industry is actively investigating, and while there will always be people who don't care or can't afford the full price – just as there are people who aren't fussed about the condition of second-hand copies or can't afford new books – it seems alarmist and inaccurate to suggest that there's no meaningful difference between official ebooks and rips.
Secondly: believe it or not, the internet has not suddenly caused the entire world to turn into bastards. As I said in the Baxter piece, some of us – a lot of us, in fact – are more than willing to balance out our free or reduced-price consumption of things by paying to support the content we like. If the only conceivable advantage of a paid-for book was that it generated revenue and thereby allowed the author to keep writing, that would be reason enough for most of us. The webcomics arena, for instance, provides innumerable examples of this, and while I'm not so naive as to start touting the generosity, altruism and selflessness of humankind as proof positive that such a system should work flawlessly, I'd humbly suggest that any author who thinks that the majority of their readership is made up of selfish, thieving assholes should probably stop to wonder why they ever thought such people would give them money in the first place. As radical and terrifying a thought as it may seem, authors have to trust that most of their readers are actually decent human beings, at least where books are concerned, because the alternative is to start thinking the worst of the people you want to support you – and that way lies madness.
And thirdly, because it bears repeating: ebooks are not replacing hardcopies. What they represent is an increase in the number of ways that people can access stories, and while ereaders and their ilk are definitely still a new arena, that doesn't mean the problem of free content – or, more specifically, of multiple readers accessing a story that has only been paid for once – is exclusively a digital problem. Digital music didn't kill radio, and it certainly didn't kill the industry; neither DVDs nor VHS before it have ever come close to threatening movies, nor has online streaming overly dented Hollywood; similarly, home recording, Tivo and boxed sets haven't changed the balance of free vs paid TV. And if libraries didn't kill bookshops, then I have a hard time believing that ebooks will either destroy publishing as we know it or replace hardcopies, because if there's two things human beings – and, by extension, the market – like, it's variety and complementary systems.
Returning to the concept that the provision of free content ultimately leads to more sales, consider how the internet has changed the way we read. I buy books now, not just because they appeal to me, but because I read the authors' blogs or Twitter and think they have something interesting to say; because innumerable book blogs and sites like Goodreads get readers invested in the ideas behind new releases while holding contests for the distribution of free early copies and ARCs that are no longer the sole purview of professional reviewers or one-off promotions in dead tree media; because there are free short stories, character bios, Easter eggs, wallpapers, maps and worldbuilding data available online, all designed to draw the reader deeper into the world. All of which is another way of saying: we rarely buy books cold any more (assuming we ever did). Bookstores and libraries are no longer our only – or even our main – source of information on upcoming releases, new authors, related titles and literary events; and that means that when we finally do front up to a first-hand store, whether virtual or physical, there's a much greater chance that we'll already know what we actually want – because somehow, somewhere, we have already been provided with free content.
Ultimately, I feel that the debate about ebook piracy has been stymied by the same sort of fearmongering that usually characterises debates about welfare cheats. Yes, some people will always abuse the system, and it's only right that we have mechanisms in place to deal with them. But simplifying the whole issue as one of lazy, selfish thieves taking advantage of the charity and resources of better people is always going to be deeply problematic, because of the extent to which it hinges on notions of deservedness. By which I mean: books are technically a luxury item, non-essential to daily living while simultaneously constituting an irrevocable, significant and active portion of our popular culture; but literacy is essential, and books are a big part of that. This is why so many government programs are obsessed with making sure children, and particularly disadvantaged children, have access to books – because of all the positive links between fostering a love of reading early on and later educational success. And yet, when it comes to the legitimate reasons why many people pirate ebooks, or rely heavily on libraries, or only buy second-hand – that is to say, because of reasons of disability, disadvantage, poverty and accessibility – we have a tendency to assume the worst of them, as we so often do of people (the same people?) who live on welfare: that they should be grateful for what they have, and that they are stealing from us by aspiring to possession of things whose full cost they haven't personally paid, and therefore don't deserve.
It's true of every necessity – food, shelter, medicine, education, childcare – that there will always some people who can't afford them. The solution in these instances is not to throw up our hands and say that if everything were free, the system would break, and that such people must therefore fend for themselves; rather, it's to expect that those who can pay, do – through taxation, through donation, through the support of relevant economies – so that those who genuinely can't don't have to. And this might seem like a radical, even socialist notion (egads! hide!), but I genuinely do believe that books are an educational, a social, a cultural necessity, and that if the primary upshot of ebook piracy is to get more people reading – by providing books to people who can't afford or access them otherwise; by introducing new authors to people who would otherwise restrict their reading out of uncertainty; by granting greater access to the books we already own but can't buy in legal digital form because of region restrictions – then, as with the example of welfare, I'm quite willing to risk that the 10% of cheating, thieving assholes go unpunished in order that the other 90% actually get to read.
Appropriated Magic
Posted: September 2, 2011 in Fly-By-Night
Tags: Anglocentric, Cultural Appropriation, Culture, Eurocentric, Fantasy, History, Magic, Mythology, Race, Random, Thoughts, UF, Western, Writing
When considering/plotting future UF stories, I strive to be culturally diverse, and not just Eurocentric. I want to have characters from a range of backgrounds, and what's more, I want to draw my magical inspiration from a range of different sources. My aim is to do this respectfully, without ignorance or appropriation. I am, however, plagued by the following worries:
My default setting on magic in the real world is usually some variant of All Magic Everywhere Is Really Part Of The One System, Despite Regional Differences. This is because most world mythologies, at least at the outset, grew up in ignorance of each other, and can therefore only be unified by an amorphous Bigger Picture. I don't like the idea that only one part of the world got magic (via mythology) right, and inventing new systems that are purely Eurocentric in origin feels like another way of saying that the rest of the world was wrong. But it feels like there's a difference between rooting around in my own cultural heritage to make new versions of vampires, werewolves and the Greek pantheon, and rooting around in someone else's to make new versions of celestial dragons, the Egyptian pantheon and djinn. So I worry that the desire to explain everything as being part of a single system is itself a Western idea, and that there's no respectful way to get around this.
When it comes to choosing the magic of non-Anglo characters, I'm very leery of creating a Captain Ethnic, where someone's powers are directly linked to their ethnicity. At the same time, I worry that taking a multi-ethnic cast and giving everyone magic that's derived from Eurocentric mythology, fantasy and folklore is an act of cultural erasure. Neither do I want to invoke the Avatar/Pocahontas plot of a white character inheriting the burden of someone else's culture. Obviously, these aren't the only alternatives, but they're currently the scenarios I worry about the most.
So, internets: any advice?


text:
Minority Report (2015) TV Pilot Review by David
Film to TV show adaptations can be hit and miss, more often miss than hit but Minority Report may be something worth seeing. I remember when I saw the film Minority report for the first time. I loved it and we got to see a futuristic world, that wasn't apocalyptic or ideal but it was realistic. We had possible cars, jet packs of sorts, the sonic shotgun, potent designer drugs, adverts that recognize you (let's face it, that one is not so far off) and so much more. The only thing that was beyond this reality based tech was the Precogs but they were handled in such a way that you believed them and accepted that they where possible.
For those of you who have not seen the film Minority Report the plot is as follows: In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes, an officer from that unit is himself accused of a future murder. The film has Tom Cruise running (again) from the law, but it's more than that it has some deep themes to it including free will vs. determinism, self-perception, political and legal themes, media and advertising influence. Lastly being a Spielberg production it also revolves around the themes of family. Big spoiler here but in the original film we find out that these 3 precogs that see the future don't always agree and on these cases lead to the creation of the minority report, which are cases where the murder may never have occurred. Due to that fact and the wrongful imprisonment of the precogs the program is shut down.
The TV series is set 11 years after the original film ended and follows the Precog Dash. After his brother vanished Dash decided to go back to civilization to locate his brother and try and put his talents to good use in stopping serious crimes from happening. Along the way he forms a partnership with Detective Lara Vega, a cop struggling to get by in a post pre-crime world.
The show helps show a good possible and realistic future, hell several technologies from the original film are already real. The worlds far from perfect but it can be improved upon, which is a nice message. So far the show seems to be your standard cop show with a twist which is a type we have seen a lot from. Though I will say that the cast is diverse,varied and they play well together, which will hopefully keep the show on the air for as long as possible.
In the end after watching the pilot I'm officially in, I don't know where it's going but I'm in and hopefully I won't find myself disappointed.
Tagged as: 20th Century Fox, Fox, future, Minority Report, pre-cog, Tom Cruise
Minority Report (2015) TV Pilot Review by Imogen
Limitless (2015) TV Pilot Review

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl