today: a miscellany

[whynot]

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.

Comments

[animus-wyrmis.livejournal.com]

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?

[twoskeletons.livejournal.com]

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.

[animus-wyrmis.livejournal.com]

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

[twoskeletons.livejournal.com]

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.

[animus-wyrmis.livejournal.com]

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.

[twoskeletons.livejournal.com]

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.