whynot | today: a miscellany

Entry tags:

today: a miscellany

ARGH. Sometimes I feel like the only stats student in a roomful of anthro students. Which, y'know, I AM. And then I say dumb things that are refuted on the next page of the paragraph I'm referring to, or I stray off onto a point that is irrelevant APPARENTLY (ART CAN BE METONYMY, I SWEAR), and then, because I notice these things and overreact to them, the professor looks at me when she says, "And then of course there is the curse. Someone can say, 'I put a curse on you. You're dead.'" ALL THE WHILE LOOKING AT ME D:

AND ALSO. The article we were discussing today, the one I DIDN'T READ, was about (ARGH) mythology, nationalism, and the COMMUNIST PURGES OF INDONESIA IN THE SIXTIES. AND I DIDN'T READ IT. 'COS ALL THE TITLE SAID WAS "Ideology as a Social Structure" so I was like, "Pah! I'll just focus on the ones about religion!" It should've been titled "All Things Relevant to Your Interests"! ARGH. I lost an opportunity to say something intelligennnnnnnnt when all this time I have felt... kind of dismissed. :(

BAH. BAH, I SAY.

So I am caught up on all seasons of the Tudors and there are things that I like about it (Princess Mary! Cromwell! Cranmer! political doublespeak! THE QUEEN OF SPAIN (and all Spain-related things)), and things that piss me off (HENRY). I wonder if they were making Henry an unsympathetic douchebag on purpose, 'cos I mean, granted, Henry VIII was a pretty huge douchebag. It's just that I can't get behind him as the heart and leading role of the story, because he's so petty and fickle and spoiled and generally horrible. I suppose we're meant to dislike him. So I guess it's a good thing that it's an ensemble cast.

I kind of have a giant crush on Cromwell and DAMN WASN'T IT HORRIBLE HOW HE DIED?! Francis Bryan is a cold motherfucker. But Cromwell is so great, because he's clever and two-faced when he needs to be, but also sincere about his Reformation (by the end? I'm not sure if he was in the beginning?), born so low and risen so high! And Cranmer and his stupid moral ground, augh <33. And Henry loved them both. Apparently Henry forever rued the execution of Cromwell, well GOOD.

And man, how fantastic is Sarah Bolger as Princess Mary, the subtleties of her emotions, of her strength and distress <33. And KATHERINE OF ARAGON, YOU'LL ALWAYS BE MY QUEEN.

I know very little about this historical period, I'll preface with that. So it's like, Henry is a puppet? And it's about the irony of how he's absolute monarch, and yet those around him take advantage of his impulsiveness to achieve their own ends. I wasn't sure what people really wanted in the beginning because everyone's so sneaky and kissing Henry's ass. When Cromwell was revealed to be actually serious about the Reformation (and not just using it as means to gain power), I was.. kind of surprised. Did he care all along, or did he eventually end up buying into his own masquerade? Like Anne Boleyn did.

The non-hanging execution scenes I kind of have to fast-forward through. Death by burning, death by BOILING?! Eek.

I watched The Tudors through the aftermath of race/genderfail, so I was especially sensitive to the rampant misogyny of the show. So my question is, what is the balance between portraying How Things Were and incorporating the feminism of our age? Thoughts?

I don't actually have that much to say. I think I might've ficced this show if the story weren't so damn convoluted. I wasn't really sure what episode I left off at last time, but then I realized it doesn't matter, because I don't care that much. They're on the way back to the island, or they're back on the island. Okay. I still ship Charlotte/Faraday (despite YOU KNOW), and Juliet/awesomeness and Sayid/hotttt.

Also, this is one of those shows that's like... It's like this one time, my friend and I were watching an episode, and she doesn't watch the show. I was going to explain to her what was happening, but I didn't need to, because Hurley and Ben were being Mr. Exposition all over the place. This show is more exposition than plot. Why do I still watch it?

Recs? Why not!

Tudors fic recs! It's all Charles Brandon, 'cos I guess Henry Cavill is pretty. But goddammit, I want some Cromwell fic. Some LADIES OF SPAIN fic!

Along the lines of crack, here is an Arthur/Gwen/Lancelot vid set to an improbable hip-hop song about Arthur/Gwen/Lancelot. (His name is Lancelot. He break dances a lot.) Here is a Merlin AU fic where they are dinosaur revolutionaries (and evolutionaries?!). And this next thing is not crack, it's just that her header graphics are gorgeous.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

what is the balance between portraying How Things Were and incorporating the feminism of our age? Thoughts?

I'm very happy with fiction portraying How Things Were, except that I think the trouble is that it often ends up putting a romantic or sympathetic gloss on that. I can happily read a good historical novel and take it as a look at an alien culture, in which people are people, but different. And I can find great interest in seeing how men and women in X historical context had a really horrific view of women, and were still sane, rational human beings who cared for each other and appreciated beauty and so on and so forth. But I hate to see the horrific smoothed over, and in that kind of context, I'm unlikely to want to feel like the author thinks any of the heterosexual relationships are particularly healthy or desirable. The people involved, within the text, may believably think so, but it's the writer's choice how to present that.

And if the writer's just not a very thoughtful person, I'd prefer they be inaccurate. Though then, if they're going to be inaccurate, I end up wondering why they can't be a little more inaccurate, and keep chucking in a bit of faux historical oppression to keep the women down... *cough*

still sane, rational human beings who cared for each other and appreciated beauty and so on and so forth.
Thisssss! A good story will make me sympathize with and understand someone who doesn't share my values. And I also like if the so-called reprehensible behavior is not being used as a morality device to represent Other. I guess the internalization process for that could be problematic though, the ability to know the difference and similarities between "She is a good woman because she does XYZ" as opposed to "She is a good woman despite the fact that she does XYZ".

So my question is, what is the balance between portraying How Things Were and incorporating the feminism of our age? Thoughts?

I guess it depends; the same discussions are kind of happening with regards to Mad Men and how women and people of color were treated in the 1960s. And I think ultimately, if it really is the way things were, not showing it does no-one any favors unless you're going for a subversion or total retelling. Like with Merlin - I'm pretty intolerant of the race/genderfail, because this is supposed to be a fresh take, anything goes - so if you decide that anything goes and but decide the oppressive, offensive shit must stay, then I have no patience for that. But yes, as long as you are being accurate and not painting what went down in a positive or glorified light - bonus points if you actually show some perspectives of the people being marginalized - then I'm good with that.

It's been too long since I watched The Tudors for me to remember exactly what was carelessly, thoughtlessly faily, and what was an attempt at accuracy. I do remember there was fail. But I think Mad Men, for example, walks this line pretty well, overall. (I have some issues, but still.)

(And yes, Katherine and Princess Mary owned my soul. Oh, Mary.)

not showing it does no-one any favors
Totally.

not painting what went down in a positive or glorified light
What if this happens when you don't mean it to? If you're trying to portray a character as honestly and sincerely as you can, so you try to slip inside their head to feel out why these actions are justified to themselves and whether this justifies using problematic tropes in your story. What do you mean by 'glorified'?

I can't say I know what you're talking about with art being metonymy, but aw man on feeling like you're missing stuff :( I felt that way in my International Studies class because everyone else was so cognizant of contemporary issues, current events, poli-sci stuff, and I was just sitting there knowing nothing. Your prof sounds - WTF was she putting a curse on you or something?? That is the weirdest D:

missing out on that indonesia reading! :(((( that is a huge bummer! aw man! at least you can still read it, though. man, this class sounds like magic.

She was pretending to be someone who was casting a curse on someone, and she just happened to look at me. And when I went to meet with her, she said I should speak up more in class so perhaps I am not completely loathsome in her sight. XD

I am only reading the parts of the reading that directly have to do with Indonesia ahahaha.

THIS CLASS IS MAGIC BECAUSE DURING MY MEETING I WAS LIKE hey professor what do you think if I write a paper about how concepts of ideology and mythology have affected how the Narnia books have been adapted into Narnia films AND SHE WAS LIKE YOU SHOULD GO FOR ITTTTTTT. Not even like the last time I tried to do this where my professor was like, "...I'm not sure about this." This time around, the prof approves moar!

haha! she sounds like a hoot. possibly scary but not if she loves your narnia idea! (THAT IS SO COOL OMGGGG) XDD oh man is this like Narnia/Academia OTP 4EVA, Lass? Are you going to be submitting these papers to a journal and they're going to go like, What's a Stats Master doing writing awesomely about mythology in kiddie lit? /tease ;D

Haha, she is not as enthusiastic as 'loves my idea', but at least she said "yes you can do that" instead of "I don't know, you might can do it if you change some things..." I think it's just that Narnia is so simple and archetypal as a story that you can apply EVERYTHING EVER IN THE WORLD TO IT, EVER EVER. <3

And, and, it still also incorporates a lot of weird details that give people reasons to go "hey what's up with that" and then write pages and pages on The Problem of Susan or Lewis Promotes Violence In Children.

YOU KNOW WHAT I LEARNED YESTERDAY?!?!

OKAY SO FRANZ BOAS, RIGHT? LEVI-STRAUSS RIGHT? Both Columbia professors back in the day and "In the midst of a speech about racial issues, at a luncheon for refugee Paul Rivet, Boas collapsed and, still clasped in the arms of colleague Claude Lévi-Strauss, he died."

HE DIED IN THE ARMS OF LEVI-STRAAAAAUUUUUSSSSSSSS omg

I am remarkably uneducated about this dude, I had to Wiki him. just for doing work w/ Pacific NW tribes he is le awesome, but that dying in Levi-Strauss's arms? WOW. He gets double plus awesome points. also, "clasped in the arms" - dude, clasped, that's practically fanfic right there.

okay I'm going to pull this anecdote out in conversation sometime, for sure. and read the rest of this wiki article because damn, he was big!

Haha, It is practically fanfiiiic. I wonder if either of them had life partners like Marx and Engels were. I don't know supermuch about Boas; we read some of his Arctic and museum stuff when I was in undergrad, that was it.

Did I tell you how in 2 weeks I'll be giving a little presentation to friends on Karl: Our Favorite Marx Brother? it's going to be so much fun. hopefully everyone there will leave convinced of Marx&Engels' true, life-partner love.

You are doing that after all! Lovely! Will you be using props? In-character monologues? A large fake beard?!

IN CHARACTER MONOLOGUES

omg

this is brilliant and will possibly happen.

I super want to use props. I am going to end up doing research for this yet, because my memory is patchy, but maybe I'll make a Best Hits list of some exciting quotes or weird metaphors he uses. I am not a presentationy person but I want to find interesting ways of making this fun.

PERHAPS YOU CAN HAVE PROP CARBUNCLES

AND USE THEM IN YOUR MONOLOGUE

GROSSEST/MOST APPROPRIATE PROP EVER

Maybe you can read aloud parts of the letters they wrote to each other?!

exactly the sort of entertainment I'm looking for! those, and excerpts from Marx's colorful ranting about his ideological opponents/inferiors. OH YEAH and that quiz at the end of the Wheen biography! fantastic!

wait what is going on with this comment? I replied to something you said somewhere...?

Oh weird, where did it go?! LJ's been acting up. The same thing happened in the prompts post. A comment of mine didn't show up for a couple of days.

I'm waiting quite anxiously for season four of The Tudors, oh man. But yes, I loved Cromwell! I was seriously sadfaced when he died. That wasn't as terrible as losing Katherine AND Anne, though. (Why yes, they are both my favorites, odd as it sounds.) And Mary is amazing. I'm really hoping they'll keep going and tell the story of the other Tudor kids, even though I know it probably won't happen. She's so great in that role, though, that I'm hoping it will anyway. And the funny thing about Henry is that nine episodes out of ten I end up wanting to smack him at least three times, but then in that episode where he had the complete breakdown after Jane's death I felt really, really horrible for him and definitely missed the spoiled, screaming, furniture-throwing version of him. And oh my god, yes, those torture/death scenes. D: D: D: D: D: D: D: D: D: I'm so anxious to see how they'll portray Catherine Parr! After Anne and Katherine she is my favorite of his wives.

I WAS SO SADFACED WHEN HE DIED. He was great to watch ascending, great to watch descending, and then the EXECUTIONER :(((((( Francis Bryan is cruelllllll.

nine episodes out of ten I end up wanting to smack him at least three times
Me too. When Jane died, I felt bad for Mary and all the other people Jane were kind to, but my heart was still hardened against Henry, who is just... a massive tool.

Next year is it, season 4 coming out? Man I can't wait.

*flail* Thanks for the rec! *more flailing*

I feel like I have a lot of stuff to say about social/revisionist history but I saw like, half an hour of the Tudors once, and then I lol'ed and moved on. But um! I think I would be much more open to a lot of feminist/revisionist media if I didn't feel like (in my extremely limited experience, okay) it didn't go the way of feminism=sexual liberation, which I am happily willing to admit is part of feminism but I'm biased, and I'm more interested in language geekery if I'm not allowed to have explosions and science and wtf am I even talking about. (I don't even know!) But yeah, sort of like Heather said, it's probably not a good idea to totally ignore misogyny, or put it in modern-day terms because you're sort of setting yourself up to fail a lot, and I think it's almost preferable (if ultimately more frustrating/exhausting) to make a point of misogyny without making a big deal of it? Because being subjected to casual misogyny like that, I think, and having women buy into/be completely unaware of it, I think, makes the point a lot more clearly (and painfully) than just having Speshul Snowflake women who are better than that. Not that they didn't/don't exist but I think on the whole the smaller bits of transcendence are much cooler and subtler than just having them say "fuck you" to the system (or putting swords in their hands) and calling it a day. And you know, focusing on women in general, instead of straight white dudes? That helps, I think. Again, wtf am I even talking about. I really need to learn when to self-censor, jeez. Also, wow, I used to word misogyny a ton there. Impressive!

ANYTHING FOR DINOSAURS, MY DEAR

I would be much more open to a lot of feminist/revisionist media if I didn't feel like (in my extremely limited experience, okay) it didn't go the way of feminism=sexual liberation
Gah, I know what you mean. Advocating real strength and independence instead of, like, whatever the hell Cosmo thinks it is.

Because being subjected to casual misogyny like that, I think, and having women buy into/be completely unaware of it, I think, makes the point a lot more clearly (and painfully) than just having Speshul Snowflake women who are better than that.
This also. A lot of the suffering that's been rendered invisible because it's just Part Of Life.

So my question is, what is the balance between portraying How Things Were and incorporating the feminism of our age? Thoughts?

I guess I tend to think that you should be accurate but that you the author should, I dunno, realize where the fail is? And also also making your characters real. Like, yes, you might have a culture where women are marginalized and everyone knows they are evil whores and stupid and whatnot, and you should TOTALLY have your characters growing up and reflecting that time, but at the same time you can't, so you have to be extra careful to show female characters who aren't evil whores/totally dumb. Whether they subvert the cultural limitations or are limited by them, and to what degree, that's all up to you, but I totally think that the writers need to remember how this would have shaped women and not fall back on stereotypical/absent women.

iawtc. And totally, there should be women who are cognizant of their position in society and their weakness in it, but also kind of see through the bullshit and try to take care of themselves and their loved ones as best they can. BUT ALSO, oughtn't there women who aren't like this? Women who don't get it, women who tried and are resigned. Women who embrace the bullshit as a survival mechanism. I'm wary of (and maybe this is just a fandom thing) how it's becoming so taboo to write about beaten women, about women who are not self-realized or independent or strong, because there is a pressure to write about a specific type of woman all the time. How good can it be to erase these stories and these women who are not as strong as, like, fanon Morgana?

This is related to fandom's tendencies towards happy endings, but that is a whole other spiel.

YES THERE SHOULD BE. Because I think to some extent when you have That One Woman who's strong and doesn't let society define her and whatever, it a) totally ignores that she usually has other factors that helped her do that--class privilege, say, or an Indulgent Father/Husband, something--and so it's not like just anyone could do it or even that she did it by sheer force of will and b) also I think it...like, erases the other women? Writers feel like they can ignore the unenlightened women and there's this message, like, well, if they would only stop being dumb they could have power too. And that's false.

Soooo I think that you need to write women in all levels of recognizing/resisting their societal limitations, but ALSO you-the-writer need to remember, like, that women did shit and had agency even when it wasn't a ton, you know? Hrm. I guess that I mean you should remember they had thoughts and things and not just use them as extensions/tools of the male characters even if that's how the male characters see them. AND AND AND women made of 50% of the population so I am sick to death of there not being female characters, yeah? Like I get it when you're on a sailing ship or something but if you're at (for example) a castle or in a village THEY SHOULD BE THERE.

And I read these (http://zahrawithaz.livejournal.com/3634.html?format=light) Merlin (http://zahrawithaz.livejournal.com/1893.html) <a href="http://zahrawithaz.livejournal.com/3365.html>essays</a>! Do you think fanon Morgana is stronger/awesomer than canon Morgana?

alskdjf why do I fail at html! Anyway I also was thinking, like, for a long time the only girls in kids' books were girly feminine girls who did girly feminine things, and this was a problem, so now we have tomboys, which, yay! But lately I've been feeling like--like the only "good" female characters want to be boys, you know? They're tomboys or they hate pink or they just wish someone would give them a sword! They are Totally Not Girly, 'cause girly girls are stupid. AND WHAT THE HELL IS THAT. Because you can be a totally cool, awesome, agency-ful person and still like clothes/pink/flowers/being clean/cooking/whatever. You can be all those things and not like violence or dirt or being one of the guys. Why is Susan--out of all the girls in Narnia!--the only one who is stereotypically feminine and the only one we aren't supposed to like? Why does Arya Stark have to be the one who Gets Things while Sansa is totally clueless? Why can't we get, like, a girly girl who works with something that isn't a sword?

Yes, the privilege of the strong woman! How it erases other women! It's kinda like the "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing, like how economic conservatives say things like that. You can always always rise above your circumstances if you have enough entrepreneurial spirit! Well, if the straps of your boots are already high up, that's gonna be easy. But otherwise, you're fucked.

well, if they would only stop being dumb they could have power too. And that's false.
Hahaha it's not them, it's the system. Sometimes you have to play the game. I want stories that aren't afraid to deal with women's imperfections and how they can be weak and dumb and like, I dunno. And geez, what am I saying? Have I just been feministing so far that I come back the other end as a misogynist?

Yeah, especially recently. Fanon Morgana is 'spunky' and full of fire and vim, and canon Morgana recently has just been... pretty.

Because you can be a totally cool, awesome, agency-ful person and still like clothes/pink/flowers/being clean/cooking/whatever.
This is why we gotta finish that Mary Poppins fic.

Yes exactly! Way to recognize that not everyone had the privileges you had, economic conservatives/anachronistically powerful women!

No, I think--::considers::. Okay, I guess I think I mostly have issues when there are so few women and they all/mostly suck. And there's also a difference between, like, "I am a servant and therefore have little power, but still do what I can" (Merlin or Gaius or Gwen even), or someone who just literally never does anything, who's so weak as a character they never seem to take action on ANYTHING. Like, LotR, right, all the guys in the Fellowship have issues, some of them totally fail, but the message is clearly that people (male people) can rise above evil, mostly. And if Boromir had been a girl that would have been a problem only 'cause, like, the one female member of the Fellowship, and she a) steals the ring b) tries to use it for her own ambitions and c) only redeems herself via a heroic sacrifice? REALLY? And I would have been FURIOUS. But if they were all women that wouldn't have been an issue at all. So, yes: female characters should totally be allowed to fail and suck, but if they're the only sucky character and the only female character I think there's a problem.

Seriously, canon Morgana, please start doing things! Everyone else is!

YES YES YES

So then I'm thinking about real life situations where there is only one girl in a group of guys, and obviously this experience varies widely, but it's not like the alienation of a girl in a group of guys is an isolated incident. The girl is a little bit out of step, a little bit pushed aside, and maybe she tries, but sometimes she doens't always 'triumph', whatever that means in a social RL context. "I have won the conversation!", whatever. And maybe this is where the putting of the one-of-the-guys tomboy on a pedestal comes from. It's just one more form of wishful thinking, and stories are already wishful thinking anyway. I realize that RL != story, but I do wonder to what extent stories should reflect life and to what extent they should instruct life.

Maybe Morgause will show her what's what. Man, I want Morgana&Morgause fic ALREADY.

Hrm, I wonder if the problem is people conflating strong characters with characters who triumph? I mean, I think that if you have a character getting pushed aside because she's a woman--well, life's like that. I just need the text to make it clear in some way that this isn't because the boys are all so awesome and she's a stupid girl, you know? I think what usually bugs me is when the writer pushes her off and refuses to give her agency or to let her into the fray. Why does Lucy never use her dagger? Why are all the adult women in Narnia dead or evil?

Duuuude, I am totally shipping Morgause/Gwen WHY DO I SHIP GWEN WITH EVERYONE.

conflating strong characters with characters who triumph
Of COURSE! Nail on the head, lady, I never thought about it as such but yes, yes. One of the prompts on my RL meme was, if I were writing YA lit, what would I want the message to be, and that is a hard question. I've been scribbling in my notebook around these things that we have been discussing, and this is one more for the count: to not confuse victory with strength and integrity.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

today: a miscellany

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject