#not to say deconstructions of identity are never useful but a lot of it frankly comes across at this point as 90s nostalgia | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

qqueenofhades · 4 years

Note

I want to hear about gay knights. Please.

Ahaha. So this is me finally getting, post-holiday, to the subject that was immediately clamoured for, when I volunteered to discuss the historical accuracy of gay knights if someone requested it. It reminds me somewhat of when my venerable colleague @oldshrewsburyian volunteered to discuss lesbian nuns, and was immediately deluged by requests to do just that. In my opinion, gay knights and lesbian nuns are the mlm/wlw solidarity of the Middle Ages, even if the tedious constructionists would like to remind us that we can’t exactly use those terms for them. It also forces us to consider the construction of modern heterosexuality, our erroneous notions of it as hegemonically transhistorical, and the fact that behaviour we would consider “queer” (and therefore implicitly outside mainstream society) was not just mainstream, but central, valorized, and crucial to constructions of medieval manhood, if not without existential anxieties of its own. Because medieval societies were often organized around the chivalric class, i.e. the king and his knights, his ability to make war, and the cultural prestige and homosocial bonds of his retinue, if you were a knight, you were (increasingly as the medieval era went on) probably a person of some status. You had a consequential role to play in this world, and your identity was the subject of legal, literary, cultural, social, religious, and other influences. And a lot of that was also, let’s face it, what the 21st century would consider Kinda Gay.

The central bond in society, the glue that made it work, was the relationships between soldiers, battlefield brotherhoods, and the intense, self-sacrifical love for the other that is familiar to anyone who has ever watched a war movie, and dates back (in explicitly gay form, at least) to the Sacred Band of Thebes. Medieval society had a careful and contested interaction with this ideal and this kind of relationship between men. Because they needed it for the successful prosecution of military ventures, they held it up as the best kind of love, to which the love of a woman could never entirely aspire, but that also ran the risk of the possibility of it turning (homo)sexual. Same-sex sexual activity was well-known in the Middle Ages, the end, full stop. The use of penitentials, or confessors’ handbooks, as sources for views or practices of queer sexual behaviour has been criticised (you will swiftly find that almost EVERYTHING used as a source for queer history is criticised, shockingly), but there remains the fact that Burchard of Worms’ 11th-century Decretum, a vast compilation of canon law, mentions same-sex behaviour among its list of sins, but assigns it a comparatively light penance. (I don’t have the actual passage handy, but it’s a certain amount of days of fasting on bread and water.) It assigns much heavier penalties for Burchard’s main concern, which was sorcery and the practice of un-Christian beliefs, rituals, or other persistent holdovers from paganism. This is not to say that homosexuality was accepted, per se, but it was known about, it must have happened enough for priests to list in their handbooks of sins, and it wasn’t The End of The World. Frankly, I am tired of having to argue that queer people existed and engaged in queer activity in the Middle Ages (not directed at you, but in general). Of course they did. Obviously they did. Moving on!

Anyway. Returning to gay knights specifically, the fact remained that if you encouraged two dudes to love each other beyond all other bonds, they might, you know, actually bang. This was worrisome, especially in the twelfth century, as explored by Matthew Kuefler, ‘Male Friendship and the Suspicion of Sodomy in Twelfth-Century France’ and Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and Sodomy’ in The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, ed. Matthew Kuefler (Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 179-214 and 273-86. I have written a couple papers (in the ever-tedious process of one day being turned into journal articles) on the subject of the Extremely Queer Richard the Lionheart, some material of which can be found in my tag for him. Richard’s queerness has been argued over for a long time, we all throw rotten banana peels at John Gillingham who took it upon himself to deny, ignore, or minimize all the evidence, but anyway. Richard was a very masculine and powerful man and formidably talented soldier who could not be reduced to the stereotype of the effeminate, weak, or impotent sodomite, and the fact that he was a prince, a duke, and a king was probably why he was repeatedly able to get away with it. But he wasn’t alone, and he wasn’t the only one. He was very much part of his culture and time, even if he kept running into ecclesiastical reprisals for it. It happened. If you want a published discussion that covers some of my points (though not all of them), there is William E. Burgwinkle, ‘The Curious Case of Richard the Lionheart’, in Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in Medieval Literature: France and England, 1050-1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 73–85. Also on the overall topic, Robert Mills, Seeing Sodomy in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).

Peter the Chanter, a Parisian cleric, also wrote De vitio sodomitico, a chapter of his Verbum abbreviatum, fulminating against “men with men, women with women [masculi cum masculis […] mulieres cum mulieribus]” which apparently happened far too often for his liking in twelfth-century Paris (along with cross-dressing and other genderqueer behaviour; the Latin version of this can be found in ‘Verbum Abbreviatum: De vitio sodomitico’ in Patrologia Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: 1855), vol. 205, pp. 333–35). Moving into the thirteenth and especially fourteenth centuries, this bond only grew in importance, and involved a new kind of anxiety. Richard Zeikowitz’s book, Homoeroticism and Chivalry: Discourses of Male Same-Sex Desire in the 14th Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), explores this discourse in detail, and points out that the intensely homoerotic element of chivalry was deeply embedded in medieval culture – and that this was something that was not queer, i.e. unusual, to them. It is modern audiences who see this behaviour as somehow contravening our expected stereotypes of medieval knights as Ultra Manly No Homo Men. When we label this “medieval queerness,” we are also making a judgment about our own expectations, and the way in which we ourselves have normalized one narrow and rigid view of masculinity.

England then had two queer kings in the 14th century, Edward II and Richard II, both of whom ended up deposed. These were for other political reasons, but their queerness was not irrelevant to assessments of their character and the reactions of their contemporaries. Sylvia Federico (‘Queer Times: Richard II in the Poems and Chronicles of Late Fourteenth-Century England’, Medium Aevum 79 (2010), 25–46) has studied the corpus of queer-coded historical writing around Richard, and noted that while the Lancastrian propaganda postdating the usurpation of Henry IV in 1399 obviously had an intent to cast his predecessor in as unfit a light as possible, the accusations of queerness started during Richard’s reign, “well before any real practical design on the throne […] and well before the famous lapse into tyranny that characterized the reign’s last few years. In poems and chronicles produced from the mid-1380s to the early 1390s, and in language that is highly charged with homophobic references, Richard II is marked as unfit to rule”. E. Amanda McVitty (‘False Knights and True Men: Contesting Chivalric Masculinity in English Treason Trials, 1388–1415,’ Journal of Medieval History 40 (2014), 458–77) examined how the treason trials of high-status individuals centred on a symbolic deconstruction of his chivalric manhood, demoting and exiling him from the intricate homosocial networks that governed the creation and performance of medieval masculinity.

This appears to have been a fairly extensive phenomenon, and one not confined to the geopolitical space of England. Henric Bagerius and Christine Ekholst (‘Kings and Favourites: Politics and Sexuality in Late Medieval Europe’, Journal of Medieval History 43 (2017), 298–319) traced the use of ‘discursive sodomy’ as a rhetorical tool employed against five late medieval monarchs, including Richard II and his great-grandfather Edward II, John II and Henry IV of Castile, and Magnus Eriksson of Sweden. In all cases, the ruler in question was viewed as emotionally and possibly sexually dependent on another man, subject to his evil counsels and treacherous wiles, and this reflected a communal anxiety that the body of the king himself – and thus the body politic – had been unacceptably queered. Nonetheless, as a divinely anointed figure and the head of state, the accusations of gender displacement or suspected sodomy could not be placed directly on the king, and were instead deflected onto the favourites themselves, generally characterised as greedy, grasping men of ignoble birth, who subverted both social and sexual order by their domination of the supposedly passive king.

None of this polemic produced by hostile sources can be read as direct confirmation of the private and physical actions of the kings behind closed doors, but in a sense, this is immaterial. The intimate lives of presumably heterosexual individuals are constructed on the same standards of evidence and to much greater certainty. In other words, queerness and queer/gay favourites could not have functioned as a textual metaphor or charged accusation if there was not some understanding of it as a lived behaviour. After all, if the practice did not physically exist or was not considered as a potential reality, there could have been no anxieties around the possibility of its improper prosecution.

This leads us nicely into the deeply vexed question of adelphopoiesis, or the “brother-making” ceremony argued by some, including John Boswell, as a medieval form of gay marriage. (Boswell, who died of AIDS in 1994, published the landmark Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality in 1980, and among other things, controversially argued that the medieval Catholic church was a vehicle for social acceptance of gay people.) Boswell’s critics have fiercely attacked this stance, claiming that the ceremony was only intended to join two men together in a celibate sibling-like relationship. A Straight Historian who participated in a modern version of the ceremony in 1985 actually argued that since she had no sexual inclinations or motives in taking part, clearly it was never used for that purpose by medieval men either. (Pause for sighing.)

The problem is: we can’t argue intentions or private actions either way. We can understand what the idealized and legal designation for the ceremony was intended to be, but we cannot then outrageously claim that every historical individual who took part in it did so for the party line reason. Maybe medieval men who joined together in brother-making ceremonies did live a celibate and saintly life (this would not be surprising). It seems ludicrous to argue, however, that none of them were romantically in love with each other, or that they never ever ever had sex, because surprise, formulaic documents and institutional guidelines cannot tell us anything about the actions of real individuals making complex choices. Even if this was not always a homosexual institution (and once again with the dangerous practice of equivocating queerness with explicitly practiced and “provable” sexual behaviour), it was beyond all reasonable doubt a homoromantic one, and one sanctioned and organised according to well-known medieval conventions, desires (for two men to live together and love each other above all) and anxieties (that they might then have sex).

The medieval men who took a ‘brother’ would probably not have seen it as a marriage, or as the kind of household formation or social contract implied in a heterosexual union, but as we have also discussed, the definition of marriage in the Middle Ages was under constant contestation anyway. The church was constantly anxious about knights: their violence, their (oftentimes) lack of religiosity, their proclivity for tournaments, swearing, drinking, and other immoral behaviour, the possibility of them having sexual affairs with each other and/or with women (though Andreas Capellanus, in De amore, wrote an entire spectacularly misogynistic handbook about how to have the right kind of love affair with a woman and dismissed same-sex relationships in one sentence as gross and unworthy, so he was clearly the No Homo Bro Knight of his day). So, as this has gotten long: gay knights were basically one of the central social, religious, and cultural concerns of the entire Middle Ages, due to their position in society, their necessity in a warlike culture, the social influence of chivalry and their tendency to bad behaviour, their perceived influence over the king (who they may also have given their Gay Cooties), their disregard of the church’s teachings, and the ever-present possibility that their love wasn’t celibate. So yes. Gay knights: Hella Historically Accurate.

The end.

#history #medieval history #queer history #gay knights #long post #i have a lot more to say but yes #the old guard meta #for reference #though this post was originally written in december 2019 #anonymous #ask

1K notes · View notes

thewatsonbeekeepers · 4 years

Text

Chapter 6 – So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish [TST 1/2]

The chapter title comes from the wonderful Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy book series – drop this meta and read them immediately.

No, no he [Moriarty] would never be that disappointing. He’s planned something, something long-term. Something that would take effect if he never made it off that rooftop alive. Posthumous revenge – no, better than that. Posthumous game.

This is what Sherlock says about Moriarty in the very first scene of TST, and on rewatch the application to Mofftiss is startling. Trust the writers – a short-term disappointment for a long-term excitement, if you will. The reference to the rooftop is a way of pointing out just how far back this has been planned – in other words, the seeming randomness of the series is not in fact random. But let’s see how that plays out in TST.

This episode opens, as so many have pointed out, with doctored footage, as though deliberately showing us how stories can be rewritten. However, we only get glimpses of the footage at the start of the episode – the extensive old footage is not security camera footage, but recap footage from s3, and specifically the end of HLV. The idea that there is something classified, hidden, that we don’t have the full story, is meant to be associated with the actual show Sherlock, not just the camera footage – it would have been very easy to give us most of the same footage in security camera style, but they deliberately reused shots from the show to make us doubt their own authenticity. So far, so good.

The first thing that I (and most of my friends) noticed about this scene, however, is that it’s not good. The writing is questionable, to say the least. The serious resolution to the problem of Magnussen’s murder is interrupted by Sherlock tweeting, brotherly bickering, hyperactive and possibly high Sherlock being played for comedy (complete with mock opera). And then, perhaps the worst lines of the show so far:

SHERLOCK: I always know when the game is on. Do you know why?

SMALLWOOD: Why?

SHERLOCK: Because I love it.

Like a lot of this show, think about those lines for more than a nanosecond and they really don’t make sense. You’ve got to think about them for a lot longer before they start to again. This, I think, is where BBC Sherlock’s self-parody really starts. TAB focuses on parodying, critiquing and rewriting historical adaptations, but it’s easy to see the merging of all of the undeniably Sherlock elements into one parodically awful scene. The quick quips that are supposed to be clever and that are so common in Moffat’s dialogue are seen in that moment of dialogue – but the quip isn’t clever anymore, it’s empty. The same catchphrase of ‘the game is on’ comes back, and the quintessential use of technology is referenced in Sherlock’s Twitter account, where again his #OhWhatABeautifulMorning is unfathomably glib. Our Sherlock is also better known than previous adaptations for his drug abuse, and this also gets referenced, but here it gets played for comedy, which is incongruous with the rest of the show – in fact, THoB, HLV and TAB all take it pretty seriously, so to see it played off as a joke is tonally questionable. In other words, here we have Sherlock caricatured as a programme, in one scene – and it’s horrible.

(We should also notice that the use of Twitter is important – it underlies a lot of the glib comedy in this episode, with Sherlock later Tweeting #221BringIt (which is so unbelievably queer?). In Sherlock, Moffat use Twitter rather than Tumblr to comment on fan reaction to Sherlock, probably because their older audience will have no idea what Tumblr is, but also because Twitter is much more mainstream in its appreciation. Twitter takes centre stage in TEH, with #SherlockLives and the scene with the support group. The joke there is about the sheer level of how-did-he-do-it mania that gripped the public – so when we see Twitter again, we should be thinking about an extratextual as well as a textual response to Sherlock, and how Sherlock’s behaviour on Twitter in this episode might caricature the way that he is seen from the outside.)

I don’t truly buy that (in this scene, at least) Mofftiss are critiquing their own show in a straightforward sense, because they have dealt with technology better than this (words on screen, technology as useful within mysteries), drugs better than this (John’s, Mycroft’s and Molly’s reactions to Sherlock’s behaviour as well as Sherlock’s own difficulties) and clever quips far better (pick any episode). But in deconstructing this show to its instantly recognisable elements, and making them worse to hyperbolise the point, that scene strips the show of its heart. Interestingly, it’s also stripped of John, who will be the metaphorical heart of Sherlock through the EMP, but is also the part of the show that is missing when it is caricatured as the Benedict-Cumberbatch-being-clever show. This is also a critique of most people’s perception of Sherlock Holmes as a character through history in the sense of the reductive cleverness – Mofftiss are showing us that this is completely empty.

What does this mean for Sherlock himself, bearing in mind that this is taking place in his Mind Palace? The answer is pretty grim – remember that Sherlock is metatextually grappling with his own identity at this point; he needs to discover the man he is, rather than is portrayed as, in order to get out of this alive. In a psychological sense, then, the opening of TST sees Sherlock deconstruct himself as seen from the outside, and as his psyche has traditionally perceived himself, and realise that that version of himself is hollow. This scene, then, is a rejection of the Sherlock of the public eye, as well as Sherlock’s own eyes.

There is a non-explanation for how the Secret Service doctored the footage of Sherlock shooting Magnussen, the response simply being that they have the tech. If the answer is going to be that vague, there is little reason to bring up the question – except to raise it in the viewers’ minds. Making the audience question their belief in the s4 universe is something that happens very frequently, and this is the start of it. A later chapter goes into the parallels that Sherlock and Doctor Who have, but there’s an important bit from Last Christmas (DW Christmas Special 2014) that is relevant here – the main characters, all dreaming, whenever they are asked any questions that can’t be explained in the dream universe, simply reply ‘it’s a long story’. This is a ‘long story’ moment – where no explanation is given, so questions about reality are raised and unanswered.

Another similar moment comes when Sherlock says he knows exactly what Moriarty is going to do next – how? And, more to the point, it becomes hugely obvious that he doesn’t. Yet, for the first time in history, he feels happy to sit back and wait on Moriarty, because he knows that what will come will come. This insistence that the future will take its course as it needs to might draw our minds ahead to the frankly ridiculous reliance on predictions that we see in TLD – however, it should also draw our minds across to Doctor Who, and to Amy’s Choice, a series five episode I’m going to delve deeper into later, but where because it’s a dream, the Doctor is able to predict every word the monsters say.

Notice that ‘glad to be alive’ is followed by Vivian saying her name – we’ll come back to this later.

Cue opening credits!

Before going anywhere else with TST, required reading is this meta by LSiT (X). I can’t make these points better than she has, nor can I take credit for them. I’m particularly invested in her description of the aquarium and the Samarra story, as well as the client cases that appear and aren’t updated on John’s blog. Our reading will diverge later on – I think this series is a lot more metaphorical than it is hypothesis-testing, although the latter is a notable feature of ACD canon (see the original THotB) that definitely does happen here as well. I’m going to leave the Samarra story, the aquarium and the cases for LSiT to explain, however, and move on.

When we move into 221B, the fuckiness is instantly apparent from the mirror. You can go here (X) to navigate the whole inside of 221B, and I suggest you do; it’s a fantastic resource. The mirror showing the green wall is simply wrong – the angle that this is shot from suggests that we should see the black and white wallpaper, complete with skull etc. Instead, we see the green wall – and the door. We can tell this is wrong because in the ‘wrong thumb’ case about thirty seconds later, the right wallpaper is reflected in the mirror. Another note of fuckiness that we should spot is that Sherlock seems to be taking his cases from letters, in the mail he has knifed into the mantelpiece – this show has been really keen on emphasising that he uses email for the last three series, so the implication that people are sending him letters is even odder than it would be in a modern show anyway.

(Everybody in the world has commented on the ‘it’s never twins’ line – but to reiterate its importance. Firstly, it’s almost identical to the line in TAB, just with ‘it’s’ instead of ‘it is’. TAB repeats lots of things though, because it’s a dream – well yes, but dreams can’t tell the future. So material from TAB being recycled doesn’t point to TAB being a dream, it points to TST being a continuation of the dream in TAB. The fact that they saw fit to reiterate this line in a series about secret siblings also puts paid to the theory that s4 was plotted in a rush and not in line with previous series – there is a theme here, and they’re pushing it.)

And so we move to Sherlock relentlessly texting through the birth, through the christening – horrible, ooc behaviour for him if we think back to how emotional he was at the wedding. Importantly, this behaviour is all tied up with his obsessive Tweeting, which in turn links in to how the outside world (i.e. us) perceive Sherlock – is this the Sherlock that people want to see on screen? Doesn’t he feel wrong? Sure, there’s an element of self-critique in there from Mofftiss, but the incorporation of the phone obsession leaves the blame squarely with the audience. In case we couldn’t already feel that Sherlock’s character is way off, we have his Siri loudly say that she can’t understand him.

We remember from TAB that Sherlock sees himself as cleverer through John’s eyes, and the reasonably sympathetic portrayal we get in TAB we can probably put down to this attempt at understanding himself from the outside. The water in TST is showing us that we’re going in, and the sad thing is that this is almost definitely how Sherlock has come to perceive himself, but just like Siri he doesn’t truly recognise it. It’s also worth noting here the emphasis placed on God in godfather and later the deliberate mentions of Christianity at the Christening – there is also a tuning out of a culture he can’t really align himself with here, which is more important when we think about the fact that this character has been around since the 19th century.

Water tells us we’re sinking deep into Sherlock’s mind, as discussed in a previous chapter. Water imagery is going to be hugely prevalent in TST, but I want to talk quickly about the subtle hints at water even when we’re not in a giant fuck-off aquarium. Take a look at the rattle scene (which always sparks joy). When we get a side angle that shows both Sherlock and Rosie, there’s a black chest of some description behind Rosie – the top is glowing slightly blue, for reasons I can’t fathom. Then we’re going to cut to a shot of Rosie – despite seeing only a second before that there is nothing on her head, there is a glow of blue on it that looks almost like a skullcap. Cut back to Sherlock getting a rattle in the face, and the mirror is glowing the same blue colour behind him. This is all fucky, and it’s a fuckiness which is aesthetically tied to the waters of Sherlock’s mind perfectly. It suggests that Rosie isn’t real, but more important is the mirror. Earlier on I pointed out how the mirror was showing the wrong reflection; here, the mirror is glowing blue, linking it thematically to Sherlock’s subconsciousness. Visually, we’re being hinted at the process of self-reflection that’s going on in Sherlock’s brain – and the opening of TST is showing him getting it terribly wrong. Note that when the mirror jolted right earlier, Sherlock was proclaiming that it had been the wrong thumb – god knows what thumbs have to do with this, but there’s a question of shifting perception on his person, like he’s trying to locate himself.

The glowing blue light sticks around, and seems particularly associated with Rosie, like she’s the focus of much of Sherlock’s thought at the moment. LSiT’s meta linked above has already picked up on the many dangers in Rosie’s cradle decoration, from the Moriarty linked images to the killer whale mobile. Due purely to a lucky pause, I caught the killer whale’s eyes glowing blue, just like the blue from the rattle scene. He’s thinking about her in terms of the key villains of the show as well as the villains in his mind.

I’m not going to comment on the bus scene because I have a chapter dedicated to Eurus moments before TFP – jumping straight ahead.

We then find our first Thatcher case – others have been pretty quick to point out the significance of the blue power ranger in gay tv history (X), and infer that Charlie is queer coded – much like David Yost, who played the blue power ranger, he is not able to come out without being treated badly. This is undoubtedly important, as is the fact that this is the second time in 12 minutes of this show that they’ve shown us how easily film footage can be faked, and someone can be lied to – you don’t need to have Mycroft Holmes levels of clearance, just a Zoom background. This is important too. But the other thing I want to focus on is that he says he’s in Tibet.

Sherlock comes pretty high on my list of top TV shows, but currently Twin Peaks holds the top spot – it’s an unashamedly cryptic show all about solving mysteries through dreams, so no wonder I like it. It’s made by David Lynch, and in the TAB chapter I talk about how TAB takes a lot of structural inspiration from his most famous film, Mulholland Drive, which has similar themes. I don’t think this is anything particularly interesting beyond an attempt to reference the defining work in the field of it-was-all-a-dream film and tv – David Lynch and Mofftiss and Victor Fleming are the only people I can think of who can actually make that plot look good. But this Tibet moment, particularly as we’re going to be hit by another reference to Tibet later, underlining its importance, I think is a reference to this scene (X) where the protagonist, Cooper, outlines a dream in which the Dalai Lama spoke to him and gave him the power to use magic to solve mysteries. Fans of Twin Peaks will know that the magic doesn’t last long – it’s pretty much an introductory way in, and most of the rest of his important deductions will all be made in dreams. This is one of the most famous scenes in the whole programme, because it introduced the world to the weirdness of what had been set up as a straightforward cop show, and despite Cooper rarely (possibly never?) mentioning Tibet again, it’s still highly quoted and recognisable. As a watershed moment in bringing dream worlds into normal detective dramas (something highly frowned upon according to any theory of storytelling!) this is a gamechanging moment, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to point to Sherlock’s several references to Tibet as a link back to this moment.

We then cut back to Sherlock thinking whilst Lestrade tells him more about the case – what is bizarre here, is that John and Lestrade are clearly visible through what can only be described as a rearview mirror attached to the side of Sherlock’s head. If anyone can tell me what that is, I would love to know. I’m going to assume it’s a fucky mirror, because it’s in keeping with the other fucky mirrors so far. The visibility of John and Lestrade in the mirror is even more odd because it doesn’t match the colour palette of 221B at all. Sherlock is lit largely in warm, brown colours, as is Charlie’s father in the previous scene we’re transitioning from – Lestrade and John are lit in dark blue, to the point where they’re barely visible. This looks like a rearview mirror, but not like the one on the power ranger car – it’s a much older car, out of a different time, like so much in this dream world. The only colour palette they seem to match is the one from the s4 promotion photos – you know, when Baker Street is completely underwater.

Drowning in the Mind Palace. Here we are, back where we started. Sherlock might be thinking about the case of Charlie, but he’s actually reflecting on that world we saw in the promo photos, where he’s struggling to stay alive in his brain. Notice that this isn’t just a split shot, it’s specifically a mirror, so we’re meant to focus on this episode as an act of reflection. There are great parallels between Sherlock and the Charlie case which you can find here (X) – essentially, Charlie and Carl Powers from TGG are mirrors for one another both in their names and in the manner they die (a fit in a tight place, basically). Carl Powers is already a mirror for Sherlock – obsessively targeted by Jim for being the best at what he does. Charlie mirrors Sherlock through their shared trip to Tibet (dreamscape alert) and, we think, through the metatextual link of the blue power ranger. In case you hadn’t spotted it, Powers links back to that too – probably coincidence, but a nice one nevertheless. Carl Powers’s death is by drowning, which we shouldn’t ignore in an episode as loaded with ideas about drowning in the mind palace. The fact that the mirror reflects drowning Baker Street aesthetics should make us think that Charlie is asking us to reflect on Carl Powers’s death, but also on Sherlock’s own – already fatally injured (by a fit or by Mary), he is going to die smothered, unable to cry for help (in a swimming pool/carseat costume (?!)/mind palace). The idea that none of these people could cry for help is particularly poignant because so much of series 4 is about Sherlock being unable to voice his own identity, and as we’ll see once he’s able to do that, that may give him the impetus to escape his death. Think of ‘John Watson is definitely in danger’ back in HLV.

Now. Why is Sherlock so keen for Lestrade to take the credit? It’s another reason to bring up the fact that John’s blog is constantly updating – it’s dropped in a lot in this series as opposed to others – and to make us think about why nothing is happening in real life. But, given that this episode is about Sherlock trying to find who he is, is it a rejection of the persona that goes along with being Sherlock Holmes? Possibly, but he’s going to have to go to a lot more effort than that. John’s blog is the real problem here, making not just Sherlock but Lestrade out to be like they’re not. John’s blog is a stand in for the original stories, which were supposed to be written by John Watson, but TAB has already (drawing on TPLoSH) laid the groundwork for the idea that John’s blog/those stories really do not tell the whole story. So this is coming back with a vengeance here, even though for the first time Sherlock is properly moving against the persona in there, not just bitching about John’s writing style, which is a theme more common to Sherlock Holmes across the ages. John then says that it’s obvious, and when pressed just laughs and says that it’s normally what Sherlock says at this point – so again, when Sherlock stops filling the intense caricature of arrogance and bravado, John the storyteller steps in to put him back in line, even though that means pulling him back to being a much more unpleasant character.

A note here: most of the time in EMP theory, I think John represents Sherlock’s heart, and I try to refer to John as heart!John as much as possible when that’s the case. There are a few cases which are different, but most notable are when the blog comes up – then John becomes John the blogger, and our symbolism shifts over to the repressive features of the original stories and how that’s playing out in the modern world. Although a pain to analyse sometimes, I find it incredibly neat that the two of them are bound up in John as source of both love and pain, which fits our story beautifully.

John as blogger continues in the baby joke that he and Lestrade have going down the stairs – they continue with their caricature of Sherlock, but he doesn’t recognise himself in it. Or rather, there’s a moment when he seems to, but he can’t quite grasp onto it. This is typical of the way he recognises himself in the programme. It’s also worth noting that the image of John as a father is particularly tied into ACD, as the creator of Sherlock Holmes, so tying together blogger and father in this scene cements our theme.

Going into the Welsborough house, we get a slip of the tongue from Sherlock which is fantastic. He tells them that he is really sorry about their daughter, which at an earlier point in the show might just be a classic Sherlock slip-up. But mixing up genders is actually something which happens quite a lot in this show, and it’s something drawn attention to as significant in TAB.

Sherlock asks John “How did he survive?” of Emelia Ricoletti, when of course he’s thinking about Moriarty, and John corrects him quickly, much like here. A coincidental callback? Maybe not. What’s the first mistake that Sherlock ever makes? Thinking that Harry Watson is a man. What’s the big trick they pull at the end of S4? Sherlock has a secret sister – and Eurus points out that her gender is the surprise at the end of TLD. Eurus is also an opposite-sex mirror for John and for Sherlock at various points and this allows Sherlock to approach their relations from a heterosexual standpoint and thus interrogate them – more on that later. So gender-swapping is a theme that runs through the show a lot. But the similarity to TAB in particular is important here, because in TAB that was our first obvious declaration that this wasn’t just a mirror to be analysed by the tumblr crowd, this was a mirror on the superficial level that had to be broken through. This callback to TAB is a callback to the mirrored dreamscape. Don’t believe me? Look at what happens next. The second Sherlock sees Thatcher the whole room not only goes underwater, but actually starts to shake – another throwback to recognising that Emelia was Moriarty, when the whole room shakes and the elephant in the room smashes. So, again, we’re being told that this isn’t about this case – it’s about something else, and that something is the elephant in the room. Just like the shaking smashes the elephant in the room, the shaking is what tells us about the smashed bust of Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher, whose laws on “promoting homosexuality” were infamous. Smashing the elephant in the room and Thatcher simultaneously between 2015, the 1980s and 1895 is hitting the history of British homophobia for the last hundred years summed up as quickly as possible, and tearing it down through Sherlock’s self-exploration. This is a good fucking show.

You’ll also notice that Sherlock is alone in the room, just for a second, when he has his Thatcher revelation – everybody else vanishes. Again, we’re seeing that the rest of the case is an illusion, providing just enough storytime to keep the audience believing in the dream, and possibly Sherlock too.

[There’s a fantastic framing of Sherlock here between two portraits, a man and a woman, seemingly ancestral – I would love to know more about these, because if I know Arwel they’re significant, and the way they hang over Sherlock is really metaphorically suggestive. If anyone has any info on that, it looks like a really good avenue to explore.]

Blue. Blue is the colour of Sherlock’s mind palace, but this scene ties it firmly to the Conservative party. The dark blue of Sherlock’s scarf nearly matches Welsborough’s jumper, which is in fact a better match for the mind palace aesthetic generally. Thatcher unsurprisingly wears blue as well. If blue is the water that Sherlock is drowning in, how interesting that it’s being tied to the most homophobic prime minister of the last 50 years. There was absolutely no need to make this guy a cabinet minister, dress him in blue, even make Thatcher replace Napoleon – I would actually argue that Churchill is a figure who matches Napoleon’s distance and stature much better for our time. Thatcher is an odd choice, and therefore significant. To tie this to the mind palace further, we then get a shot of Sherlock reflected in the picture of Thatcher as he analyses it – a reflection of him reflecting. In case we forgot what this was actually about.

Sherlock not knowing who Thatcher is – perfectly feasible and actually quite important, although something that I’m not going to resolve until my meta on TFP, because that’s where it comes together for me. But Sherlock playing for time with his further jokes about being oblivious (‘female?’) – that, again, is Sherlock actively playing a caricature of himself. He’s not doing it for fun – he’s doing it to cover up his concern about the smashed elephant in the room Thatcher bust.

The weird thing about the reveal of how Charlie died is that we see what should have happened, if everything had gone right, before we see how he died. I can’t recall this happening in another episode of Sherlock, although I could be wrong. It’s marked by the really noticeable scene transition of crackling television static, as though the signal is cutting out. This is possibly a bit of a reach, but there’s one obvious place where we’ve seen a lot of static before.

Moriarty coming back isn’t what’s supposed to happen. It doesn’t happen in the books. We’re telling the wrong story here. (Bear in mind, from previous chapters, that Jim represents Sherlock’s fear that John’s life is in danger.) Just like Jim returning isn’t the right story, but it’s the one that happened, Charlie’s story isn’t the right story but it’s the one that happened – and indeed, Sherlock needing to save John from a dangerous marriage + suicide is not what is supposed to happen – John and Mary are supposed to be married for good (until she dies) in canon. A whole load of false endings – new stories superseding old ones. Mofftiss has an idea that there’s a new story that’s going to be told, and our strongest canon divergence is the end of s3, when we get into the EMP – and from thereon in to TAB it’s off the deep end, and the same is seen here. That TV static is talking about a new medium for a new age and their refusal to deal with established canon norms. Just in case we didn’t remember, outside in the porch we even get a visual reminder of the TV static with a second’s flashback to ‘Miss Me?’ Bad news is, that means Sherlock Holmes rejecting the norms he’s been given (feasibly represented by the hyperbolic nuclear family here) and instead… dying in his mind palace. Less fun. Carl Powers died too. Sherlock still hasn’t got there quite yet – let’s hope he doesn’t.

The next scene is, I think, very important. We come across Mycroft in a dark room with a tiny bit of light – this is really odd, as the obvious place to put Mycroft would be the Diogenes Club. Yet, although clearly more modern, this reminds me most of all of the room we meet Mycroft in in TAB.

The colour palette is the same as the top photo, and the similar chunks of light falling through suggest that we’re in the same place. I’ve brought in a photo from the aeroplane in TAB to show how the light is designed to mirror that of the Diogenes Club in TAB as well – there is a unity in all these Mycroft’s that we shouldn’t miss. Here I can’t imagine I’m the first one to notice that the light in Mycroft’s office is designed to look like a chessboard, which was an important motif in the promotional pictures for s4. Chess is associated with Sherlock’s brain through Mycroft, most notably in THE where it is contrasted with Operation which represents their emotional (in)capacities. So here we are – Mycroft is the brain, if we didn’t already know, and Sherlock has gone to speak to his brain alone much like he did in TAB. Mycroft has already been associated with the queen a lot; they meet in Buckingham Palace in ASiB, where there is a jibe about Mycroft being the queen of England – we can see here in Sherlock’s head that the brain’s power is vastly reduced by comparing these two episodes. The first time we see Mycroft in connection to the Queen we go to the most famous building in the UK. The second time, Sherlock says he’s going to the Mall, which is the street that Buckingham Palace is on, so we are led to expect a reprisal – and instead come here. There is still a picture of the queen on the wall, but apart from that we are in the darkest room of the show so far, whose grating makes it look under siege. Mycroft’s power in Sherlock’s head is vastly reduced, and indeed the brain’s influence (represented by the queen) over Sherlock’s character is waning as Sherlock struggles to come to terms with his emotional identity.

[Crack/tenuous theory: when Sherlock asks John if he is the king of England in s3, in the drunk knee grope scene, this shows that his brain’s control over his emotions have slipped; references to the queen in relation to Mycroft before have shown that Sherlock does know about the royal family, so this has to metaphorically refer to his own psyche and letting go of his brain’s anti-emotion side. Like I say, crack. But I believe it.]

Again, if we weren’t sure about Mycroft representing the brain without the heart, his rejection of the baby photos is sending out a clear message of juxtaposition with John, who represents the heart. We also shouldn’t fail to notice the water coming over Sherlock’s face again as he struggles to recognise what is important about this. This comes as he is trying to recognise what is important about the Thatchers case. I’m going to try to lay it out as best I can here.

We’ve been through what Thatcher represents to queer people of Sherlock’s age, so there’s already a strong metaphor for homophobia being smashed there. However, let’s look at the AGRA memory stick being uncovered. We know (X) that Sherlock deduced his feelings for John as he was marrying Mary, and so having the smashing of the Thatcher bust at the AGRA memory stick reveal is pretty devastating metaphorically. Why does Sherlock constantly think Moriarty is involved? Well, HLV tells us that the Jim in Sherlock’s mind is his darkest fear – and he’s originally tied up in Sherlock’s mind when he’s first shot, but he pretty quickly gets loose. That darkest fear is exactly what Jim says in that episode: ‘John Watson is definitely in danger’. The reason we bring Jim in to represent this is part of deconstructing the myth of Sherlock Holmes. The whole concept of an arch enemy is made fun of in the show, and rightly so; Moriarty himself tells the Sir Boastalot story which lines Sherlock up with that ridiculous heroic tradition that he’s set himself into, which isn’t what Sherlock Holmes is really about at all. Holmes has never really been particularly invested in individual criminals (although there are exceptions – Irene Adler, for example) – the time he gets most het up is The Three Garridebs, as we all know, when he thinks Watson is dying. It’s his greatest fear, and it’s also what Jim threatens, so Jim has become a proxy for that – and to understand that Sherlock Holmes is not the great Sherlock Holmes of the last hundred years, we have to get under and beyond Jim. Hence what we’re about to see. It’s not Jim, it’s Mary – and this is in very real terms, because Mary’s assassination attempt on Sherlock has left John in danger – but Sherlock won’t put the pieces together until the end of this episode, as we will see.

We should also pause over Mycroft asking Sherlock whether he’s having a premonition – Mycroft is laughing at the concept of Sherlock being able to envisage the future here, which we should remember when it comes to the frankly ludicrous plot of the next episode. Much like the much commented upon “it’s not like it is in the movies” which is there to undermine TST, this line is here to undermine TLD and point out the fact that it can’t possibly be real.

Sherlock describes predestination as like a spider’s web and like mathematics – both of these are to do with Moriarty. In the original stories, Moriarty is a mathematician, and one of the most famous lines from both the stories and the show describes Moriarty as a spider. This predestined future is one that Sherlock doesn’t like – Mycroft points out that predestination ends in death, which is what Sherlock is trying to avoid in this episode, and although Moriarty is never mentioned explicitly, his inflection here suggests that Sherlock is thinking about John subconsciously, without even understanding it. The Samarra discussion brings us back to the question of Sherlock’s death, and links it in with the deep waters of the mind he’s currently drowning in – the pirate imagery becomes really important here, because a pirate is someone who stays alive on the high seas and fights against them. The merchant of Samarra becoming a pirate is not merely a joke about a little boy, it’s a point about fighting for survival – and how will Sherlock later fight for survival? We’ll see him battle Eurus (his trauma, more on that later) head on, literally describing himself as a pirate. Fantastic stuff.

The scene transition where all of the glass breaks and then we cut to a background of what looks like blue water is a motif that runs through this entire episode – we’re smashing down walls in Sherlock’s mind, most particularly the Thatcher wall of 1980s homophobia, and indeed the first picture we see is that of the smashed bust.

Moving on – before we go back to Baker Street, there’s a shot of the outside – that features a mirror, reflecting back on 221B in a distorted, twisted way. Another mirror that is wrong – we’re reflecting in an alternate reality. These images keep popping up. It’s echoed in Sherlock’s deduction a few seconds later – by the side of his chair is what looks like either a car mirror or a magnifying glass, possibly the one from the Charlie scene, distorting his arm. It’s placed to look like a magnifying glass, whether it is or not, which ties in with the classic image of Holmes – but that image is distorted, remember.

Others have pointed out that when Sherlock falsely deduces that the client’s wife is a spy working for Moriarty, he should really be talking to John – and, in fact, this is another proof that this isn’t really, because otherwise this is pretty touchy stuff to be making light of in front of John. Instead, let’s remember this is Sherlock’s Mind Palace – John isn’t John here. What Sherlock does a lot in s4 – and nowhere more than the finale of TST – is displace a lot of his real world problems onto other people because he cannot handle the emotional impact of them, and that’s what he’s doing here. He’s trying to come to terms with the danger that Mary poses, but he can’t do it with John – hence why this scene has a John substitute, because that’s what the client is.

Note that the red balloon is over the Union Jack cushion, reminding us that this scene is about John in danger (see this post X). However, what’s important here is that Sherlock has got it wrong. He’s currently trying to work out why what has just happened with Mary poses so much danger, and he’s imagining Mary as the worst threat he possibly could – in a word, this Mary is a supervillain. But Mary is not a supervillain; he’s got this all wrong, and even as he says it, it’s completely ridiculous. This is not the danger Mary poses – and so out the door the client goes, and we’re back to square one, trying to work out exactly why John is in so much danger.

I’m not going to pause over the next moment of importance for too long because many have covered it – let’s just notice that Sherlock’s face is overlaid with a smashed Thatcher bust, and remind ourselves that these are the walls of homophobia in Sherlock’s brain. Also note that this matches the half-face overlay of the water in the previous scene, linking the two (although the scene with Ajay later will cement that anyway).

Next up: Craig and his dog. Nothing can be said about dogs that hasn’t be said in these wonderful metas by @sagestreet (X). Nevertheless, let’s note that this dog is coloured the same as Redbeard, and Mary (a Sherlock mirror in this episode, and in this scene – their clothing matches, and their joining of skillsets to exclude John is the link that has always united them as mirrors) compares John to the dog. We know from the metas linked above that dogs are linked to queerness in the show, but let’s remember that John here is not John – John represents Sherlock’s own heart. It’s going to take longer than this for Sherlock to acknowledge John’s queerness. I don’t think Toby the dog is that important – instead, this is foreshadowing for the more significant dog to come in TFP. The dog also allows for another bit of self-parody in the show – the close-up on the dog running through chemical symbols and the map link directly back to the chase scene in ASiP, but this time everything is different. We have no clue really what Toby is chasing or what the crime that has been committed is – they’re not even running, they’re walking! All we have are cool, if ridiculous, graphics – and, brought down to style without substance, it’s nothing but comic parody. This is important because the opening of TST is so parodic – we’re back to questioning whether the things that people associate with Sherlock and think they like about Sherlock are the right things. The fact that Toby reaches a dead end here is important – he’s a weird loose end to have hanging through the episode. When things in Sherlock normally tie together so nicely, this is a section which has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the plot other than to look a bit silly. But fundamentally, we’re talking about the superfluity of style and image here; we’ve been talking about it for a long time in relation to previous adaptations, but TST brings it in in relation to Sherlock itself.

Skipping past more bust breakages, the next scene is John and Mary in bed together – and the first thing we see is them, once again, in a mirror. There’s nothing wrong with this mirror (as far as I can tell) – everything seems to be in order! But it doesn’t break the theme of mirrors misreflecting, because this is the scene that introduces unreliable narration on a big level – this is the scene which deliberately excludes John’s texts to E. John and Eurus are gone into in another chapter so we’ll move on again.

Craig’s quote about people being weird for missing the olden days is, of course, crucial to this reading of Sherlock. It’s pretty on the nose for a show whose protagonist is idealised in the Victorian age – and sums up Mofftiss’s feelings towards the Vincent Starrett 221B poem that I elaborated on in the TAB chapter of this meta: essentially, that it always being 1895 is a very bad thing! Craig’s mockery of this nostalgia puts it into more comprehensible modern terms for us, but it also links Thatcher and 1895 again as pasts to be broken with. It’s also important that Craig says that Thatcher is like Napoleon now – although the titles of most episodes are taken from ACD stories, it’s rare that an explicit reference is made to the link between the titles (nobody mentions scarlet vs. pink in ASiP, for example). This is the first time that I can find that Sherlock shows self-awareness from within the narrative that there are extranarrative stories being played out. I’ve said before that I don’t think Thatcher and Napoleon are a good comparison; whether it is or not, Craig’s reference is actively pulling a metatextual part of Sherlock’s history into his story and forcing him to reckon with it. This is important, because he develops expectations of how this story is going to play out (black pearl of the Borgias) which are wrong – because they’re based on what he has learned to expect of himself as fictional character. We could only have such a reference within the Mind Palace.

For the sake of splitting this meta up to make it readable, I’m going to call time on this half of TST, and we’ll pick it up tomorrow at Jack Sandiford’s house. (Also I don’t know how much text tumblr allows and this is a long document.) Until then!

#emp #tst #tjlc #meta #bbc sherlock #my meta #mine #thewatsonbeekeepers #chapter six: so long and thanks for all the fish #tjlc is real #emp theory #the six thatchers #johnlock

60 notes · View notes

metaphorewhore25 · 3 years

Text

Beach Rats (2017) & Why We Need More Movies Like It

There is a general underlying paradigm in society that “men do the looking and women are to be looked at” and Beach Rats (2017) is a movie that challenges that from its very first shot. The movie opens with an 18-something teenager taking mirror selfies in a dirty basement mirror. The camera pans over his very masculine features – his biceps, armpit hair, nipples, and the rest of his torso.

I was sold to the movie right there. Hardly do I see movies with such a focus on the male form. I have watched Eliza Hittman’s ‘It Felt Like Love’ (2013) which does the same thing from a teenage girl’s point of view but Beach Rats simply does it more and does it better.

I know that Beach Rats is a gay movie and hence the camera captures the perspective of a boy, not a girl, and hence may not exactly be called ‘The Female Gaze’ but it is written and directed by a cishet woman and frankly, I believe even that is a start when it comes to subverting the male gaze, flipping the camera and putting men at the centre, making them subjects of visual pleasure.

What Beach Rats does extremely well is this: It makes the audience uncomfortable.

And that is precisely why I loved it. In mainstream movies when the lead actresses are introduced by butt-to-lips-to-head shots, it doesn’t really make us uncomfortable anymore because it has become the norm. We’ve just accepted girls being captured in this way. We may even accept young, underage girls portrayed in a sexualized manner but focusing on men’s butts and forearms is sure to make us rethink what we are seeing on screen. Long idle shots of Frankie, the protagonist and his friends shirtless by the beach playing handball or just swimming, their chiselled dude-bro bodies taking up the majority of the screen is something we are quite unused to.

Even the scenes where Frankie is in his room and browsing a gay cam site on the internet makes us feel uncomfortable because we are simply more exposed to women doing these things like posing and pouting. It was quite fresh to see the white man become the one being looked at. It almost felt like revenge to me, like “You see this is how it feels to be constantly scrutinized or unnecessarily sexualized!”

I feel that we need to get more comfortable with the idea of male bodies presented on screen just as we are with female bodies.

However, I am aware that “Revenge” is not what women in the industry are going for, or should go for. Unlike the Male Gaze, the Female Gaze is much trickier to define. Simply objectifying men back will not do. We don’t want to revert the power structure, but rather deconstruct it.

Alina Gufran from The Swaddle says “While the act of objectifying a man through the eyes of a woman remains revolutionary, it ultimately lends itself to a very “male” idea of what the female gaze should be.” When women are handed over the cameras and the pens and the main roles, the product is often not just an objectification of men but rather a humane and emotional portrayal of both men and women as people.

Although, I would personally say that after years of having seen myself and the media around me through men’s perspectives, it is fun sometimes to objectify men and get back at the system.

I believe Beach Rats takes that extra step, by not only sexualizing men like some feminist revenge fantasy but also showing the audience vulnerability, emotions and honest intimacy. The camera zooms in on Frankie’s face a lot. He is often dreamy, confused or just melancholic. In the course of the movie his father, suffering from cancer passes away, he witnesses his younger sister getting intimate with a boy her age and his friends, although given hardly any dialogues are a key influence in his life as he often forced to fit in with them and arrange drugs for them which he steals from his father’s medicine cabinet. His friends are toxic and not at all empathetic as he often proclaims “These are not my friends” as a joke with an element of truth. All this while he is navigating personal conflict regarding his sexuality and suppressing his true self with his friends and family because he cannot fathom how they would understand.

During daylight hours, Frankie has to keep up appearances by maintaining a girlfriend but during the nighttime, he often goes on a website for gay men in Brooklyn and meets up with older men for one-night stands that are often fulfilling, but often also leave him confused.

The film is definitely voyeuristic but it also has its non-sexual intimate moments. There’s a scene where Frankie has to go masturbate before joining his girlfriend in bed because he can’t maintain erections in her presence. In moments like this, we can see his vulnerability as he tries to laugh it off or gets frustrated at his body quite often telling him something else.

My favourite scene I would say is when he decides for the first time to meet up with an older, more experienced man from the website and the camera shoots him preparing for the rendezvous in a very vulnerable and intimate way. Frankie is shown lifting weights to perhaps tone his muscles, trimming his pubic hair with a scissor and taking a shower and giving himself a thorough wash. I believe shots like this, give the character a very human feel and helps the audience relate to his insecurities and struggles that lie behind the muscular façade.

Admittedly, Frankie’s friends are only two-dimensional characters and used as props for plot development and often fall into the cliché dude-bro stereotypes. They are perhaps used only to flex their shapely bodies and contribute to Frankie’s inner conflict. They are not people, they are just cishet men in the movie. They are the ones we may call purely “objectified”.

The sexual politics are at one point even explicitly stated in the film’s dialogue when Frankie asks Simone (his girlfriend) if two men making out is hot. Simone says that two girls making out is no big deal and is obviously hot but two men making out is just gay. Reading into the subtext, the word “gay” here is used in the derogatory sense.

Of course, neither should be seen as “hot”. Homosexuality is supposed to exist in its own place, having an identity of its own and shouldn’t be co-opted by and for heterosexuals for their pleasure or entertainment.

But, due to the infiltration of the male gaze in popular media and a society that entitles men and suppresses female voices; women bear the burden of being unfairly sexualized. This same patriarchy socializes young boys and girls to view themselves a certain way, boys are taught not to be emotional and affectionate and are thus also disadvantaged by the patriarchy. I’m talking about things like “boys don’t cry” or “two guys don’t hold hands”. The movie shows the reflections of these through Frankie’s toxic masculine friends and sometimes even Simone.

Frankie feels like he’d never be accepted into the mainstream of society because of the same sexual politics that exist in the world and that Hittman is trying to deconstruct. It is perhaps due to the fact that Frankie cannot come out that the film is shot mostly in the dark and in dingy places.

Beach Rats is a fine example of a movie that shows us a strong, conspicuous alternative to the male gaze. It does one thing very well and it is depicting male bodies in a casual, real, vulnerable, sexy and overt way and we need more of that. We need more male body presence on the screen because we as a culture of people are so oblivious to it. It’s always “Ass or Tits?”, “Pear-shaped or Hourglass-shaped” and “Skinny or Thick” and all these labels that apply only to women’s bodies to an extent where we perhaps don’t even feel like male bodies are something to be gazed at in the first place.

“Men look for looks and women look for personality”. How often have you heard this? I am not trying to defy the evolutionary explanations which may explain things to some extent. But we as this highly intelligent species cannot be completely bound by merely evolutionary instincts. While The Female Gaze does incorporate emotions and intimacy, I liked how Beach Rats balanced out the emotional and the purely carnal. I am not saying we need more male bodies on screen in simply a sexual way. I want to see male bodies even in very mundane non-sexual ways just because I feel it needs to be normalized. Normalize focusing on the man’s body too in heterosexual romance films perhaps. Beach Rats was quite a refreshing watch despite its dark colour pallet because I was quite frankly amused to see what happens when the camera is reversed and allowed to linger on manly features. Perhaps through this, we may reach the ultimate goal of both men and women moving fluidly between the subject and object of mutual desire.

Posted originally on: https://rishikapandit.com/2021/06/08/beach-rats-why-we-need-more-movies-like-it/

4 notes · View notes

hobbitkiller · 4 years

Text

She-Ra, Supergirl, and Tangled: A Tale of Three Female Relationships: Part 3

*SPOILER WARNING FOR SHE-RA, SUPERGIRL, AND TANGLED: THE SERIES*

Previously on “A Tale of Three Female Relationships” AKA HobbitKiller clearly misses grad school but not enough to find secondary sources for a multi-part tublr. post (or thoroughly proofread):

In Part 2, I discussed the impact narcissistic mother figures, resentment for chosen ones, and repressing emotions has had on three female relationships in three different series: Adora and Catra from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Lena and Kara from Supergirl, and Rapunzel and Cassandra from Tangled: The Series/Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure.

These posts are a deep dive into where these relationships went wrong and will eventually culminate in a discussion of what these relationships say about the portrayal of female characters and female relationships in media.

For today’s installment, I will be covering two subjects: Blond Bulldozers and I Don’t Care (I Ship It). WARNING: This one gets reallllllly long. Like, possibly multiple sittings.

PART VI: BLOND BULLDOZERS

In my first post in this series, I jokingly mentioned that one half in all three of these relationships is a superpowered blonde who saves the world.

There are of course many implications in the fact that, though all three of these shows strive for increased diversity compared to their source material (It is also interesting that these are all shows based on pre-existing franchises), the main character continues to be a fair-skinned blond woman.

That’s mostly a matter to be discussed another day, but I do find it interesting that all of these relationships feature one blond and one not-blond. Lena and Cassandra have black hair, and Catra is...well...a cat-person. Beyond that, the blond is not only the hero, but is typically depicted as morally superior and more righteous. Kara, AKA Supergirl, was literally declared the “Paragon of Hope” in the latest CW crossover, Crisis on Infinite Earths. That title could just as easily have gone to Rapunzel whose chief characteristics are her optimism, desire to see others achieve their dreams, and belief that everyone gets a second chance no matter their criminal past and exploits (seriously, everyone in Corona--the name of the kingdom unfortunately for right now--gets one total pardon as long as they’re sorry even if the tried to kill multiple people). Adora is a little less cotton-candy that Kara or Rapunzel. She has the same moral righteousness, but actually has more of an edge to her than many of her friends due to her upbringing as a child soldier. Still, all three blondes are meant, for the most part, to be the moral center of their shows.

But, the thing is, when I look at these relationships, I can’t help but think of another popular blonde/not blonde friendship that went wrong:

Ahhh, Wicked, the prototypical female friendship story for so many of us. Wicked aims to take this classic dynamic of the morally pure blond protagonist and their dark-haired frienemy and turn it a bit on its head. Throughout the musical, Glinda is treated as pure, superior, and good because she is flattering and pretty. In reality, Glinda is often selfish and lacks the courage to stand up to people and systems she believes are wrong. Elphaba, on the other hand, is treated like an outcast because of her green skin and social awkwardness. Yet, for most of the musical, she is the one with the moral righteousness. She is labeled “wicked” by those in power for challenging them and standing up to them.

We’ll discuss Wicked more in the finale of this multi-part post.

For now, I’d like to contrast that relationship to the three being analyzed right now. None of these three shows goes as far as Wicked did to undermine this trope of the perfect blond versus the darker brunette. This makes sense as none of the three properties is seeking to deconstruct their source material or turn it on its head in the way Wicked aims to do so for the Wizard of Oz (the movie more than anything else). They seek to update and diversify certain aspects to be sure (someone heard loud and clear the criticism that there are no people of color in Tangled), but not to challenge them.

That being said, each show does try to layer in flaws in their blond protagonists approach to relationships. These flaws tend to be more subtle than those of the people around them, perhaps to protect said blondes from becoming too unlikeable, but they are clearly there.

In the last post, I talked a lot about the resentment of the non-blondes in these relationships and how that helped lead to the relationships falling apart. Those characters are also much more the aggressors in said relationships and are much more set on taking down the other party.

However, the blondes in each relationship are not without blame for it falling apart.

In the previous post, I discussed how being friends of a so-called “chosen one” or “golden child” can breed resentment. I also mentioned that raising someone as a “golden child” is its own form of abuse. It creates a level of unrealistic expectations to always be perfect and responsible. It can be the same for a “chosen one.”

Adora, Kara, and Rapunzel all feel a tremendous amount of responsibility as the “saviors” of their respective worlds. This manifests itself in a need to constantly “fix” everyone else’s problems. Adora frequently describes her need to fix whatever goes wrong in the Rebellion. Kara feels it’s her job to fix things so much that she contacted her former boss’s estranged son behind her back to try to reconnect them. Rapunzel frequently becomes involved in the personal lives of her friends for the sake of fixing their problems.

To an extent, this is a good quality. All three of our blond saviors have good hearts and don’t want to see anyone else suffer, partially because all of them have suffered their own childhood traumas from being raised as a child soldier to witnessing one’s entire planet and species destroyed to being held prisoner for 18 years.

However, as the title of this section suggests, all three of these characters tend to take a bulldozer approach to their involvement with their loved ones’ lives. This creates tension in many of their relationships, not just those discussed in these posts. Adora’s attempts to help her friend Glimmer after Glimmer becomes queen come off as controlling and as though Adora doesn’t respect Glimmer’s position of authority. Kara, in addition to the incident with her boss’s son, had also tried to control the life of another alien (and eventual boyfriend), Mon El as well as did things like break into her sister’s apartment when she was sad. Rapunzel promises to fix everyone’s problems, which leads to friends feeling betrayed when she can’t follow through. She also frequently intrudes in Cassandra’s life and plans.

One of the most threatening things for people like Catra, Lena, or Cassandra is to feel as though they do not have control over their lives. When you already have trust issues, feeling like someone else is trying to control you can feel like you’re being trapped. Control is particularly important to Lena. In many ways, she has the same feelings of responsibility as Kara. Like Kara, Lena, having been raised by one of the most powerful and influential families on the planet, feels a sense of responsibility to be a world leader. She feels that even more keenly in light of the villainous actions of her mother and brother--that she has to restore honor to the family name. As discussed in the previous post, this feeling in Lena manifests itself in her actions towards her friends through buying them things or trying to solve problems for them such as buying Kara’s and James’s place of work, Catco, to save it from being purchased by a scumbag.

This need to take back control of her life and legacy, to me, is why Lena reacts so drastically to discovering that Kara is Supergirl. Being mad at Kara for keeping secrets is, frankly, hypocritical on several counts. Not only does Lena keep many, many secrets from Kara throughout the show, but she is also fine with the fact that Alex, Kara’s sister, never told Lena explicitly that she was an agent of the Department of Extranormal Operations (DEO). Of course, the reason why Lena wasn’t mad at Alex is because Lena had already known who Alex was, thus giving her power and control in that relationship. Finding out that her friend had successfully hidden her identity for years and had been influencing events without Lena’s knowledge took away the control Lena felt she had over that relationship.

Cassandra also feels a keen lack of control over her life and her relationship with Rapunzel due to the fact that Rapunzel is both her monarch and direct employer. Cassandra serves Rapunzel and that is the first avenue through which they formed a relationship. Early in their relationship, Cassandra resented Rapunzel’s attempts to become friends and said the chance of a Lady in Waiting and a princess becoming friends was a million to one. Rapunzel, by nature of being “irrepressible” (as her friends call her), manages to worm her way into Cassandra’s heart to the point that Cassandra almost forgets that she and Rapunzel are not equals.

youtube

What I find interesting about both Cassandra and Lena is that they both, in some ways, considered themselves the protectors of their naive blond friends. While it’s true that Cassandra always knew her station was below Rapunzel, part of her job early on was teaching Rapunzel how to be a member of the court--what to do, when to curtsy, who was who, etc. In fact, Rapunzel had so little exposure to the outside world, Cass was partly responsibly for teaching her how to interact socially in general. There’s also the added factor that Cassandra is 4 years older than Rapunzel, which can seem like a lot at their ages. Lena, as previously discussed, saw herself as a major figure in shaping the future of the world. She went out of her way to help Kara by buying Catco and tried to protect Kara if they were ever in physical danger together.

Both of these characters suffered from an abrupt challenge to the relationship roles they previously thought they had. Cassandra in this scene and Lena when Lex tells her that Kara is Supergirl.

youtube

It’s interesting that, in that scene, Lex emphasizes the idea that Lena has been a fool. (And, fair enough, I’m pretty sure everyone who’s ever watched the show found it hard to believe that Lena never once realized her best friend was Supergirl. I mean...really, glasses?) But this idea, that she had been a fool plays right into Lena’s fear of losing control. It’s the idea that someone else was pulling strings while she was oblivious that taps right into her deepest insecurities.

Catra’s issues with feeling controlled by Adora are mostly revealed in the episode discussed last post called “Promise.” They come up again in the third season finale when Adora tries to convince Catra to come with her and leave a world that is crumbling out of existence and Catra declares that she will never go with Adora, and that she won’t “let you win” and “would rather see the whole world end (which it’s doing BTW) than let that happen.” Catra believes the way to get control back from Adora is to “win” at any cost.

In the end, this idea of “winning” becomes part of all three relationships. It’s no longer about working together or “us against the world” for the not-blondes who have felt crushed under the weight of their friends. Now it’s about achieving their goals in spite of the collateral damage.

And the most frustrating part is that the blondes are largely oblivious to the fact that they make their friends feel this way or that they are overstepping boundaries. They just think they’re doing the right thing because they’re “taking care of” or “fixing” the problem. They’re so concerned with taking care of or protecting their friends, that they don’t realize how patronizing and condescending that can feel.

So, even as these relationship turn so sour, why are so many people not only rooting for the friendship to return, but for our ladies to go the next level beyond?

PART VII: I DON’T CARE (I SHIP IT)

youtube

I sometimes wonder how the greatest point of contention, the biggest source of toxicity, and the most exhausting part of fandom became shipping. I have seen more nastiness among fans and toward creators and actors about shipping than just about anything else.

Shipping has a long history in fandom, though that term is relatively recent. People have been writing fan fiction about Kirk and Spock getting together since the show was on and fan fiction was written and shared at either in-person gatherings or through semi-underground fanzines.

And, trust me, I’ve been in the trenches of a ship war. Back when Avatar: The Last Airbender was airing, I was a hardcore Zutara shipper. And, to be more honest, it made me a jerk. Part of that is just because I was a teenager at the time, and teenagers don’t always realize the potential impacts of their actions due to brain chemistry etc, etc. But still, the intensity with which I argued that my ship either would or should become canon when the creators of the show clearly preferred the other relationship embarrasses me when I look back at it.

These days, fandom shipping has gotten even more complicated and contentious.

Back when those women (and it was mostly women) were typing their Kirk/Spock fan fiction and mailing it to other fans, they knew Kirk and Spock would never actually get together on the show. That was the case for the majority of fandoms until very recently--that there was no expectations of actual canon lgbtq representation. People could claim there was deliberate subtext or coding, but very few, if any people, expected shows to actually have openly lgbtq characters.

Then, it started to actually happen. Not just in a, “the actor said they saw their character as gay” or “the creators said they coded that character as gay” way. Characters actually started being lgbt on screen in ways that weren’t demeaning or stereotypes. Major characters, too.

For me, a big moment that gave rise to the hopes of many that their lgbt ships might actually have a shot at being confirmed as canon was, funnily enough, the sequel show to Avatar: TLA, The Legend of Korra.

The above was the closest the couple got to an on-screen intimate moment, and some fans didn’t believe it was romantic until it was later confirmed by the show creators. Nickelodeon was only willing to go so far, after all. The followup comics, however, are much more explicit with the relationship and the two share multiple kisses and intimate moments.

Many fans argue that Korrasami (as the ship between Korra and Asami is called) was too subtle to be considered real representation. But a wave could certainly be felt throughout the world of animation afterword. Shows became even more bold about confirming lgbt characters or at least became less subtle in their coding.

And suddenly, the idea that a main character’s finale pairing might be anything other than straight became a real possibility and, in some cases, an expectation.

In addition to the growing visibility of lgbt relationships in media, another change was slowly taking place within fandom.

For much of modern fandom, the most popular ships have been male/male (mlm). Back when I was getting into fan fiction (because I love reminding people that I’m old), this was called “slash.” Slash was exclusively a term for mlm relationships. Same-sex relationships between women (wlw) were labeled “fem-slash,” and were much more rare.

Multiple people have discussed theories for why mlm was, and continues to be in many cases, the most popular type of ship. Some believe it has to do with the prevalence of straight women in fandom who might fetishize mlm relationships. While I have no doubt that’s partly true, I believe the other common argument has a great deal of merit: there were more mlm ships because male characters were more interesting and more prevalent.

Star Trek: The Original Series had only two main female characters and neither of them was given close to the emotional depth as Spock or Kirk. Lord of the Rings, which was one of the most popular pieces of media on which to write fanfic when I was younger, has so few women the movies had to add in a boat load of new scenes for Arwen.

Recently, though, not only have more shows invested in writing dynamic, interesting female characters, but they have included multiple diverse female characters with relationships with each other and not just the men in the shows.

So, not only do more people ship wlw ships, but more people expect to actually see those ships represented in their media. Never before has a wlw ship becoming “endgame” seemed more possible.

In many ways this is fantastic. More representation being not only more possible but more expected is absolutely necessary for our media to progress and grow. This has, however, lead to some growing tensions in communities where shipping has, in some ways, become its own form of activism, which means that there is not only people’s personal feelings and preferences for ships on the line, but people who feel that fighting for their ship to become canon is a proxy battle for their own acceptance.

All three of these wlw ships mean a lot to the people who ship them, and all three have been met with the desire, and occasionally demand, of canon validation as well as a heady mess of coding, accusations of queer baiting, and the lingering question of which, if any, relationships might get the same, and hopefully more explicit, validation that Korrasami had.

Let’s start this deep dive into these relationships as ships with the one that has, in canon, already been resolved.

Yep, that’s definitely a Disney twirl going on there.

One of the first points often made when the validity of a mlm or wlw ship is questioned is that, if you say an m/f couple do the same thing, no one would question that it was romantic. This makes it interesting, and sets off the shipping alarm for anyone who’s a fan of wlw ships when Tangled: The Series goes out of its way to not only give Cass and Rapunzel (ship name: Cassunzel) romantic moments like the above “Disney twirl,” but also directly parallels relationship moments that occurred between Rapunzel and her canon boyfriend/future husband Eugene (AKA Flynn Rider).

youtube

Look familiar? It’s almost a shot-for-shot remake of Rapunzel and Eugene meeting for the first time. In this episode, Cassandra accidentally wipes Rapunzel’s memory to the point where Rapunzel thinks she’s still in the tower. It plays out, in part, as “What if Cassandra had found her instead of Eugene?”--something every shipper had doubtless already asked themselves at least once.

Another major moment of paralleling between the two relationships is the endings of both the movie and the series.

Eugene dies in the end of Tangled only to be resurrected by Rapunzel’s love. Cassandra dies in the series finale of Tangled: The Series, only to be resurrected by Rapunzel’s love. And it is love, that much is very clear.

The only debate really, is whether it’s romantic or platonic love.

Cassandra and Rapunzel never get official validation in the show or by the executive producers. The most confirmation fans get outside of the text of the show are comments made by some people who work on the show saying that they deliberately coded Cassandra as gay as they could whenever they could.

Yet, for the most part, the creators of this show are largely given a pass by Cassunzel shippers for not making their ship canon. Most understand that, as a Disney property, many hands are tied, particularly given that, due the previous establishment both form the end of Tangled and from the short Tangled Ever After that Rapunzel and Eugene do get married. The reaction seems to largely be that Disney and the show got about as close to confirming it as they could without doing so.

So let’s transition from the show that met, and in some ways, passed expectations to one that has set expectations super high: She-Ra and the Princesses of Power.

She-Ra is perhaps one of the most lgbtqia coded shows out there right now. The first season even ends with them saving the day with a rainbow.

Here is show-runner and executive producer Noelle Stevenson on queerness in her life and She-Ra:

youtube

Yet, despite these deliberate attempts to show representation and to challenge heteronormative ideas, the show has yet to show any of its primary characters or even second tier characters in queer romantic relationships. We have seen a few parents, one pair on in a photo, and their is one married couple of women, but none of these characters are prominently featured on the show.

She-Ra has set expectations incredibly high and has yet to deliver.

Even so, part of what sets She-Ra apart from the other two shows discussed here is that there are multiple queer shipping opportunities. Catra and Adora (ship name Catradora) are one of, if not the, most popular ships, but both Catra and Adora have other female characters with which they could be just as easily shipped.

On the one hand, the pressure is pretty high to establish at least one major queer ship before the end of the show. On the other hand, the pressure is much less that the ship specifically be Catradora.

The near-certainty that there will be one or more wlw ships confirmed before the end of She-Ra means, to me, that Catradora has the greatest chance to become canon.

So, there’s Cassunzel that never really had much of a chance for canon confirmation and Catradora, which has a better chance of becoming canon, but also has less pressure to become THE ship. Where does that leave Lena and Kara?

Anyone who has been in the Supergirl fandom knows that it can feel like a battleground. While all fandoms tend to have their issues, Supergirl’s can be so contentions that it, frankly, makes watching the show less fun. This doesn’t all fall on one groups shoulders, I’ve seen nastiness from many sides over different issues. However, the biggest point of contention tends to center around the potential ship of Lena and Kara (Supercorp).

Supercorp, as a ship, is completely valid. Kara has way more chemistry with Lena than she has had with any of her male love interests, and two of those guys were played by people whom actress Melissa Benoist was actually in relationships with (though the first was an abusive dirtbag, so lack of chemistry probably makes sense there). Lena once thanked Kara by filling her entire office with flowers. There are cuddles, and Kara’s unwavering (until recently) faith in Lena’s goodness. It’s hard not to ship them.

The issue in the fandom, is not so much that people ship Supercorp (though there are increasingly more people who have issues with the ship itself, which is something I’ll address about all three of these ships in the next post) but the vehemence with which some who ship Supercorp approach whether it will be endgame.

In a way, the frustration is understandable. Supergirl is, in many ways, a show that has made a point of including LGBTQ representation. The second season featured a multiple episode story arc of Supergirl’s adoptive sister Alex Danvers (I will stan her until the end of time) realizing she was a lesbian, coming out, and eventually starting a relationship with another woman. Supergirl also made headlines for featuring the first live-action trans superhero on tv with the introduction of Dreamer in Season 4. The trans actress who plays Dreamer, Nicole Maines, has even had input on how the character is represented including a recent episode that discussed the often ignored violence targeting trans people, particularly trans women of color.

She-Ra and Supergirl have different approaches to representation. She-Ra takes place in a fantasy world and appears to take the approach that nothing about identity or sexuality should be assumed about anyone. There is no heteronormativity in Etheria, yet no major characters are in non-m/f relationships. Supergirl on the other hand, is set in a world more similar to ours which has heteronormativity, homophobia, and transphobia, which leads to the show making episodes and story-arcs specifically about those topics while also somewhat constraining the show. There are arguments to be made about the worth of both approaches and both can serve a purpose for viewers, particularly young viewers, who are searching for characters like them in media.

So, why are the people behind Supergirl so often accused of homophobia?

I mentioned in the Blond Bulldozers section that it is a bit telling that all three shows being discussed here attempt to create diversity while having the whitest, most mainstream character as the lead. There are many who would argue that the true values of the shows are represented by their main characters, and that the rest are window dressing to try to make the show look good as a form of tokenism. The point being that shows won’t really show a commitment to diversity until the main characters are just as diverse as the rest of the cast.

These are all valid arguments.

A less valid argument is the claim that Supercorp is being deliberately baited by the creators of the show. Queer baiting is a term that seems to have a lot of subjectivity tied up with it. The general idea is that it is when creators purposefully use queer coding or other means to inspire queer shipping of characters as a means to draw in the queer community to their show but then never delivering on that potential.

In some ways, all three of these shows could be accused of queer baiting. The direct parallels in between Cassandra/Rapunzel and Eugene/Rapunzel were no accident. The coding and “anything can happen” while very little does on She-Ra is much the same. And Supergirl is trying to center a large part of the show around the relationship between Kara and Lena, a relationship they know many of the fans see as romantic.

Yet, to me, Supergirl, is actually a less guilty party, at least when it comes to Supercorp. One can, again, argue that the canon LGBT ships and characters exist to pander and draw in those audiences, but Supercorp, I believe, genuinely came out of a place of wanting Kara to have a strong female relationship with someone other than her sister, mother, or boss, and I’m sure this falling-out was in the plans fairly early on.

Has the show completely shut down the idea? No, I don’t think they would be foolish enough to do that. But I don’t believe that it rises to the level of baiting. Shows like Sherlock or movies like Pitch Perfect 3 are, to me, much more egregious examples.

Still, as I said, I can understand the frustration of Supercorp shippers, I just feel like the level of anger directed by some not just at the creatives who make the show but at other fans as well is not fully justified. (And yes, I know “not all Supercorps” and I also know other fans have been jerks. Sanvers shippers who are being asses about Kelly are just as bad.) And who knows? I’d never say never to the ship maybe becoming canon eventually after Kara and Lena work out their issues.

That being said, all three of these ships, regardless of canon status, are incredibly popular, and I want to examine more of what that is and the reason some people are wary of these ships and the potential messages they send. This leads me to our topics for our next installment:

MY WIFE IS A BITCH AND I LIKE HER SO MUCH

and

POISON PARADISE

I will try to make the next one shorter. Also, sorry for typos, I did not give this a thorough read-through. I used all my brain power just writing it.

#supergirl #kara danvers #lena luthor #supercorp #she ra #spop #adora #catra #catradora #tangled the series #rapunzel's tangled adventure #rapunzel #tts cassandra #cassandra #cassunzel

27 notes · View notes

dredshirtroberts · 4 years

Text

I’m gonna ramble because i took a shower and feel less like i’m dissociating. I mean I still am but it is less.

Things have been. Not Good. recently.

So, with the whole coming out to my family thing there have been...hiccups. It was anticipated and frankly I think I’m lucky it’s going as well as it is, in that they’re not angry with me.

Doesn’t make it hurt less when they ignore my gender but you know, it’s tricky since i’m not like...good at appearing male in the way they would recognize. We’ll...deconstruct wordchoices in a minute.

It’s fine, I realized things were going to be tricky, it’s still incredibly new to all of us, and frankly, again, it could be worse.

A family friend passed away last weekend. He was very old, had some very bad health problems and he had only been given a few months to live at best back in March. They did a vow renewal the other week, he and his wife, and he died peacefully in his sleep from only complications due to his illness and not from other contributing factors.

He and his wife were pretty much a second set of parents for me and my sister while we were growing up, and my parents were the same for their girls. We were all roughly the same age-ish, and we went to the same church, mom worked for them for a while, the wife helped me go through the classes I needed to in order to get confirmed in the Episcopal church at 14ish or whenever it was. We had standing days during the year we’d all get together and hang out, sometimes up at their property on The Mountain.

They’re also very much like my parents and extremely right-wing and with all the accompanying baggage that goes along with that.

still sucks. Like...it hurts a lot that he’s gone because he was one of those figures in my life I just kinda assumed would always be there.

The visitation was last night - the funeral was tonight. I only went to the visitation and had no plans on going to the funeral which I am glad I decided to do because I...am not good to be around people.

After the visitation, we celebrated my sister’s birthday because why must the world stop? Also it totally sucks that this is all happening the weekend of her birthday and like, she should get to celebrate a little.

That i had to have my birthday over the internet when the whole pandemic was less of a big deal hurts only a little. I didn’t get fancy food, or fun drinks, or socialization with my family longer than a couple hours - the week my radio got stolen out of my fucking car from the parking lot of the apartment building.

I did do some fun things don’t get me wrong but it’s like...they said when the quarantine time was over we’d do something for my birthday properly and sure quarantine shouldn’t be over and frankly nothing should be open but they haven’t cared *since* my birthday. So that sucks.

I had to deal with getting misgendered all night. It’s not technically deadnaming me if I haven’t told them to call me another name and frankly I don’t think that’ll go over well anyway so I’m just...putting it off really.

we get back to mom and dad’s and my aunt and her husband come over and I’ve also come out to them, and the first thing my aunt does when she sees my hair is give me a backhanded compliment about how it’s a “bold look”.

She didn’t say anything nicer than that about it.

She didn’t say anything else about it at all.

Fine, whatever, okay, it’s hair, I like it, other people have said it looks good but like... “Bold look”...I know she doesn’t like it. I know most of my family doesn’t like it because I should be a beautiful pretty little girl for them, with long hair and makeup and trying to be a proper grownup woman and if I look too much like a boy I’ll never find a husband who will turn me back around from my weird late-in-the-game tomboy phase or whatever the fuck they think.

My sister then proceeded to tell me that she and my parents don’t agree with my gender. Not that they don’t support me! They support me so much! But their opinion is different from mine on it, but also that shouldn’t hurt me even though holy fuck it absolutely does. I tried to clarify - I thought i understood what she was trying to say, and when I clarified she was like “no, that’s not what I mean I mean that we love *you* and who *you* are but we have a different opinion on this stuff” and I’m like...

So you don’t think I should exist? And you don’t get why that hurts?

Her response was “That’s not fair” not “you’re wrong” but “That’s not fair” which means I got it right on the head of the nail and she’s mad that I’m upset about it.

I eventually decided this wasn’t something I wanted to do, told her I get it, she’s allowed to have her “opinions” about whether or not my gender identity is fucking real, changed the subject and proceeded to just get...really drunk.

Thankfully any emotions I might have felt about it were perceived as being about the death of our friend but like...

I knew this weekend wasn’t about me and my shit and that was fine, it’s fine. I can be an incredibly self-centered person sometimes and I’m trying very hard not to take shit personally but it was like...hit after hit after hit and i’d been feeling really good about myself and how i was able to present and it was like...none of it mattered. The more I put into trying to look more like a guy the more my family ignored it and more forcefully misgendered me to the point where I don’t actually know how much was them just not caring about it/paying attention and how much was deliberate.

So...it sucked. sucked a lot.

Woke up this morning with a bad hangover, drove home, napped for four hours, ate some food, and proceeded to dissociate for the next ... i guess seven? hours? idk.

And like...nothing I work on in my free time means anything. I was trying to share some of my hobby accomplishments but it’s like...sometimes they get brushed off in such a way that I feel like I’m supposed to have grown out of it all and they’re just waiting for me to be an adult now and stop having fun.

so...this weekend sucked. a lot. it still sucks. i have some very good friends in my life right now and they’ve been very helpful at keeping the bad things at bay for the past week or so but like...i don’t talk about this shit. I’ve told 2 people this was going on this weekend and I didn’t bring it up more outside of that. I haven’t gone into detail about how it went. But I need to process it and it’s easier when it’s not sitting in my head.

I’m still dissociating. It’s gotten worse as I’ve written this which is a fun thing to realize is happening as you’re writing. I won’t remember I’ve written this in all likelihood since that’s how this tends to go.

I’m going back to reading for a bit. I might try sleeping at some point. But the fic I’m reading just got to the happy ending part and so I might as well try to force some seratonin in that way. All else fails, I’ll scroll through my tried-and-true favorites and see if that makes it better.

or I’ll just. idk...

I cried yesterday for the first time in a few weeks - like properly with tears n shit and i couldn’t even let myself have it because I had to be, like, not crying or a mess because there were people around and it wasn’t...i would be bringing things down and making shit about me when it’s not about me and it just fucking hurts inside you guys. I just hurt and I didn’t realize it would keep hurting like that.

fuck it i might cry now, idk yet. might help. should probably get some water before it happens. don’t wanna be caught dehydrated and needing water after a crying jag. doesn’t help much.

#this is...not a happy post #please know that going into it #it is not necessary this be read #i'm processing some shit from this weekend and it's...a lot harder than i thought it would be #this isn't even a fraction of what's happening in my head #but dissociation is stealing a lot of it from me #and i'm probably gonna go cry now.

2 notes · View notes

ganymedesclock · 5 years

Note

So you said in an earlier post that you’d been thinking of a hypothetical Sendak reform arc. Could you elaborate on that?

So this is one thing that’s actually sort of still a theory.

Simply: I think Sendak and Lotor are half-siblings, with Lotor the elder of the two. We’re told pretty clearly Zarkon had no other partners before Honerva; Alfor remarks that he’s astonished at the idea that Zarkon would ever marry, and the way Zarkon acts around Honerva initially would seem to make it pretty clear that he’s not exactly done this romantic song and dance before.

However, Sendak is significantly implicated with the royal family both in the main universe and in the “happy family” universe we see in late s8.

In the main universe, while it’s subtle, s4e3 has some very meaning-laden exchange between Lotor and Zarkon about how Zarkon never personally trained Lotor. Lotor is basically saying he only fails because he was not taught, which we know on Lotor’s side he’s setting up to be rejected by Zarkon- so he’s asking for something he’s confident Zarkon will never give him.

This is noteworthy because we only hear that Zarkon personally trained one person: Sendak. We in fact literally see Zarkon training Sendak in the “happy family” universe- and if you look at what that version of Sendak is wearing?

It’s the exact same red armor with gold accents that Zarkon and only Zarkon wears. Not explicitly confirmed to be lordly armor, but, that’s still very significant that we see Sendak bedecked in Zarkon’s colors.

In the main universe, of course, that’s not the case, however, also in the main universe, when Haggar chooses someone to back instead of Lotor for the throne, she goes to Sendak. Furthermore, when Pidge and Allura question hologram Sendak on the Atlas, Sendak asserts that he comes from an “unquestionably galra lineage” but does not clarify who his parents are.

There’s also the fact that when Sendak does arrive to the Kral Zera, he’s dismissed specifically for having vanished when Zarkon needs him. This is significant first because it implies that while Zarkon cut Sendak preferential treatment in the form of personal training, that’s not reinforced by the imperial hierarchy. Somehow, Sendak caught Zarkon’s eye in a way that Zarkon was implicitly involved with Sendak’s education, possibly even from a very young age (s1e9, Sendak implies that he sees himself as having no identity outside of serving Zarkon which are the words of an indoctrinated person), but without Sendak having really climbed the ranks or received positive acknowledgement from any of the imperial brass.

However, Janka, who is stated to be more cautious and calculating of the potential contenders, definitely seems to think Sendak’s trouble- to the point that when he smugly dismissed Gnov a second ago, once Sendak turns up he’s proposing alliances, and then, when Sendak has him cornered, Janka tries to barter with him.

The other significant side of why Sendak is dismissed at the Kral Zera is that it mirrors something Throk said about Lotor in s3e1- where the first criticism Throk voices of Lotor is “Why is he not at his father’s bedside?” It implies that within the empire there’s a cultural attitude that children should serve their father, and if they don’t, that’s dishonorable or untrustworthy of them.

And Zarkon is considered beautiful enough his likeness is put on posters, so while Honerva’s disoriented and beset with amnesia (or, in the happy family universe, died) it’s quite possible that Zarkon took another consort, and that consort might have produced Sendak.

But if Zarkon never acknowledges Sendak as his heir, or favors him with the title of prince, that’s going to create an interesting issue. It would explain why Zarkon would spend so much time training Sendak, and why Janka would consider him a threat, but Ranveig would dismiss him.

Also during the Kral Zera- Sendak and Lotor talk rather personally to each other. The implication is some history there, and, moreover…

The happy family universe seems to tell us something else. That Zarkon and Honerva seem to have set Lotor and Sendak against each other.

While Lotor and Sendak don’t seem super close in the “Happy Family” universe, it still stands that this idealized depiction of the galra royal family has both of them. Presumably, in that universe, Sendak would be acknowledged as the younger prince because Zarkon would have likely remarried in the wake of Honerva’s death.

And during the Kral Zera, Lotor seems specifically trying to warn Sendak. There’s a lot less of the scorn he addresses Zarkon with when he accuses Zarkon of being Honerva’s puppet in s5e2; rather, there seems to be this undercurrent of “don’t you see what she’s doing to you?”

So that creates this interesting thread, if that theory’s true (and since canon’s done and both Lotor and Sendak are dead, I figure you can basically choose to take it just on the grounds that it makes things a lot more interesting if it is true) It would imply Sendak’s the Azula to Lotor’s Zuko. Two abused children whose paths diverged a long time ago.

But I was aware a big reason I started to feel really bad for Sendak is, on top of all of the implications he was heavily indoctrinated and that, again, in s1e9 he earnestly brags about not having any purpose in life outside of the empire, talking up how being surgically taken apart and cybernetically augmented made him ‘better’ in his own eyes- his ultimate death is basically hollow. It’s bereft of even the spite that led him to first attack Earth- it’s just an empty repetition of the values he was raised with.

Sendak is ultimately a deconstruction of the Red Paladin role, as much as Zarkon- an abusive tyrant- is a deconstruction of the Black Paladin role. Sendak’s loyalty is manipulated. It’s exploited. While he is clearly an adult with a lot of autonomy, he’s an adult that grew from heavily indoctrinated roots. As he says himself, he basically can’t imagine a life outside of the empire, outside of his role, outside of being what he is.

And the way Lotor talks to him at the Kral Zera really makes me think that you could have built something very interesting in Lotor who wasn’t derailed away from the heroes at the end of s6… trying to reach Sendak. Trying to actually help him. Because frankly, it’s possible they grew up together- it’s possible they were even friends at some point. They could have been friends even as late as the colony, and Ven’Tar, with the rift only really happening in full with Lotor’s exile. Because we see at that point Lotor had no real intention of breaking with the empire, he wanted to make it better and he wanted Zarkon’s approval.

There’s still a lot Sendak would need to answer for, and, ultimately, it would have to be Sendak finding a reason to want to change, but, so much of his unwavering faith in the empire seems to be born entirely out of isolation and indoctrination. He’s never had any other path, and, especially if he was considered illegitimate as an heir, he’d start to resent Lotor for being formally acknowledged as a prince when not only is Lotor in exile and resenting Zarkon, but, bigoted voices within the empire would be quick to insist Sendak, as a pure galra, would be “worthier” than his Altean half-brother.

#voltron legendary defender #vld #Sendak #Lotor #season 8 #readmore #sepublic

158 notes · View notes

thegeminisage · 5 years

Text

i’m gonna liveblog my rewatch of 2.08 because i can

it’s stupid long so here’s the cut

just to give you an idea of how fast this switch flipped for me at the start of this episode when uther is like “u will find no one who embodies nobleness better than my son arthur” i went “PFFFFFT” & had a good chortle

i have a lot to say about this duel challenge sequence. 1. why are strangers always coming in and tossing their glove on the floor. everyone in that room is armed. just take them out! 2. arthur picks up the glove first this time, unlike 1.03. guess he can learn after all 3. he does it BEFORE SEEING HER FACE god classic he’s so fucking stupid

everyone getting their panties in a twist over having to fight a WOMAN when in reality she goes on to kick his ass is like...both tiresome & hilarious

i used to really be on the fence about the Vibe between merlin & arthur because while they seemed quite happy to die for one another from the get-go most of the time arthur is just being MEAN and merlin isn’t as mean back and it’s like :/ ok i don’t get what everyone else is so heart-eyes over. but in 2.08 they do a lot of confiding in one another and just general talking about plot-stuff where arthur’s insults are...not absent, but kept to a minimum, and idk it’s nice! it’s nice. less like arthur is a massive bully and more like they’re Companions. i’m not hopeful about it lasting bc this show doesn’t know the meaning of the words “consist continuity” but it was reeeeeaally good here

arthur’s face when he lost to a G I R L and uther just walked out with no comment. even back when i still hated him i was like “ouch”

that being said it was a welcome change of pace to see merlin giving ARTHUR shit for once. finally

upon morgause and morgana’s first meeting when morgause says “i hope you will remember me fondly” i went “WOW THAT’S GAY” because i didn’t KNOW and cathy told me later she had to put her head in her hands for five whole minutes. don’t shoot me i’m just the messenger they’re the ones who wrote it that way

my favorite thing about morgause is that i couldn’t immediately figure her out. i’m in the habit of throwing out guesses about future plot points for fun, because i’m a writer and that’s how i deconstruct things, and since this show was kind of meant to be kid-friendly i’m usually right. but as far as morgause went...i didn’t have a clue. i had NO IDEA this whole ep would be like this

i’ve said this before (not on this blog tho) but arthur is like...really eager to die. i keep joking that he has a death wish but upon further reflection i don’t think he’s actively seeking to end his life as much as he would be relieved to die for something noble like honor or whatever because then he would have...done it right, if that makes any sense, and wouldn’t have to worry about screwing it up anymore. he doesn’t want to die but he craves a good death. to prove to his dad and himself that he’s made of the right stuff?? i’m not being very clear. this concept requires more thought

it’s REALLY a lot for me that uther would rather throw arthur in his own chambers than have him find out about ygraine. yyyyikes

merlin sneaking in that rope was so cute. he finally got the group’s communal braincell for a few minutes

on the other hand after the troll episodes i am SO tired of dung being played for laughs. i really suffered

also man i’m so glad morgana finally got some sleep it’s what she deserves

this Dead Parent talk really mcmurdered me. both merlin and arthur lost a parent when they were very young & they now cannot remember said parent and we HAVE THAT IN COMMON so every single word they said was like an arrow straight to my heart!!!!!!! like as good as the ending to this episode was (and OH it was good OHHHHH it was GOOD) i think this right here is what truly softened me up towards arthur. this is relatability, this is emotional vulnerability, this is a genuine human connection made between EQUALS and frankly it’s exactly what i’ve been wanting from these guys for a season and a half. their willingness to die for each other is good stuff to be sure but it’s EMPTY without some meat to back it up & we’re finally getting what we deserve

“i’d do anything for even the vaguest memory” like they didn’t have to go that hard & read me for filth like that but they did. they did. arthur. babe. my guy.

almost every time someone comes in to speak with uther he’s eating and he has like an entire mini-banquet in front of him even though he’s all by himself. like, an entire plate of grapes, a whole-ass chicken, an intact loaf of bread, a bowl FILLED with whole uncut apples...wtf??

“what would YOU know about magic, merlin?” “nothing ;)” i did have a good chortle truly

i’ve already made my points about arthur and a good death but MAN he was hasty to put his head on that chopping block for no good fucking reason at all. holy shit. him casually doing that swing-thing he does with his sword to the axe ahead of time really adds a lot to this entire thing and also aged me ten years

when arthur was like “what if my father’s attitude towards magic is wrong” and “surely not everyone who practices magic can be evil” i gasped so fucking loud. so fucking loud

and the worst part is you can practically feel merlin’s heartbeat pick up. just LOOK at his “wtf am i hearing is this for real could my dreams actually come true” face. but at the same time, he’s got to be the one with a healthy suspicion here because arthur is in over his head. so he STILL can’t trust it. and then naturally it goes to hell so quickly that the chance for merlin to confide in arthur is lost. i can’t believe this took 4 irl years and five seasons. watching this live must have been like TORTURE. i’m practically bingeing it and i’m still suffering deeply

it’s very odd to me that arthur specifically said his mother died before he opened his eyes but the first thing ygraine says to him is that she remembers him staring up at her. to me that’s an obvious clue that she’s a fake, and the cutaway during that line to merlin’s face tells me he had the same suspicion (and that he’s kind of horrified by it)

ARTHUR FEELS SO GUILTY FOR HER DYING AND I’M ALSO DYING AND SLDFKMGHLSKDFJH

i know for a fact that ygraine’s telling of these events is slightly altered from the truth too...there’s no way that uther would have been so overcome with grief that he went on to commit genocide if he knew beforehand that his wife would die and was willing to sacrifice her

on the other hand, there’s also a cutaway to morgause’s face during this speech in which she looks surprised or confused at what ygraine says, which doesn’t add up if she was pulling these strings, so...What Is The Truth

not to be like this but merlin bearing witness to this whole series of events is like...there’s some things that once you go through them with somebody things between you change and there’s a new intimacy there...i don’t expect much from a show that likes to return to the status quo but in my heart it’s how i feel

OH BOY HERE WE GO. arthur arrives in camelot and pulls his sword out as soon as he leaves his horse leaving a visibly spooked merlin behind him this is the STUFF

“arthur was born of magic” is really a hell of a line because even though i already knew this backstory i hadn’t stopped to consider it like that...no, magic is not a crucial part of arthur’s identity and how he views himself the way it is for merlin and morgana, but it’s still a part of his history and what made him who he is, that made him alive and different from other people. his hatred and fear of it becomes so much more tragic in that light. i think also there was such a clear line drown before between people who are magic and people who are not and for me, mentally, arthur kind of...swapped sides, or is at least straddling the border

merlin’s absolute FURY at uther’s hypocrisy is like...........fucking. another thing i wanted to see for a season and a half. imo there’s not nearly enough meat to the fact that merlin is magic and ultimately serves uther who is trying to decimate him and his kind - has actually SAVED UTHER'S LIFE on MULTIPLE occasions. this is the first time this show actually went “hey uther is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people and that’s really not at all ok” and i am SO into it. like, no, he’s not misguided. he’s not “just grieving.” he’s a murderer. he’s responsible for genocide.

the final 9 minutes of this episode feature arthur pendragon being absolutely FURIOUS. he’s LIVID. he’s PISSED. and i love it more than anything else this show has done so far

i genuinely, truly believed he didn’t have this in him. never in my WILDEST DREAMS could i have imagined arthur doing this. i had written it off as the stuff of fanfics. but holy shit my man snapped

HE👏DID👏THAT👏

reasons i did not see this coming at all even a little: 1. i figured there was no way arthur would get over his anti-magic thing until near the end (i know it must come back later, but STILL) 2. i did not believe for one second he could ever seriously stand up to his father for more than a few minutes at a time 3. most of what’s making arthur so goddamn pissed is that he thinks his dad killed his mom on purpose but he’s also showing a fair amount of horror at the fact that uther hunted down and killed everyone even remotely associated with sorcery like animals. do you know what that is? does anybody else understand the enormity of this? HE IS SHOWING EMPATHY. i DID NOT believe he was capable of it.

i do feel a way about how uther started this scene from a place of cool confidence - he was handing out orders, “leave us and no one comes in,” manipulating the situation, “she was lying to you, magic users are trying to destroy us,” and finally trying to close the door on the topic and reassert control, “i am your kind and your father and you will SHOW ME SOME RESPECT” - and arthur was not only having none of it (the way his eyes narrowed as uther’s casual “she was lying”...oh boy) he TURNED THE TABLES and had uther ON THE DEFENSIVE. the number of times we’ve seen uther shut other people down and get his way because he’s king and everyone is afraid of him and this time uther was the one who afraid LITERALLY for his life. HOW’S THAT TASTE BITCH god it was SO satisfying. like, there’s one shot where arthur is walking slowly towards him after all his verbal tactics have failed to de-escalate the situation and he’s in the backround with his eyes so fucking wide and he looks TERRIFIED. i LOVE IT

“you are my son. you would not strike an unarmed man.” “i no longer consider myself your son” AND HE STRIKES HIM

HE👏

DID👏

THAT👏

when i say that i LITERALLY screamed i am not at all exaggerating or using hyperbole. cathy asked twice if i needed to pause & collect myself. i could not have paused if my life depended on it

i’m really on the fence about merlin stopping arthur. on the one hand, arthur has suffered enough and doesn’t need to suffer more by having to carry the guilt or dadmurder. under the other, uther is a monster and needs to die, and the entire world would be better off without him

like...arthur’s face when he says “you have caused so much suffering and pain”...he really finally got it. for one beautiful brilliant moment he understood

i am NOT on the fence about merlin lying to arthur. that was the wrong way to do it. arthur 6000% deserves to know the truth and that’s only gonna come back and bite them later i’m sure (unless it never comes back at all in which case i’ll be pissed)

i’m not sure that arthur would have backed off if they had told the truth and said “uther didn’t realize your mom was gonna die so really that part wasn’t his fault”...he was really mad! but he might’ve. lying was not the way to go. i’m so angry at literally everyone in that scene for allowing arthur to walk away believing he was wrong. he was so full of conviction and he was about to do a really good thing - not good for him personally, but good for the world - and everyone he trusts lied to his face in order to maintain the status quo and not have to deal with anything ugly. i HATE it. i’m team arthur now. i’m in the arthur defense squad. all those dumb liars aren’t good enough to be his friends!!!!!!

like, even his dad’s words were sooo carefully chosen to avoid lying but also avoid telling the whole truth. even in that moment when arthur was laying it all bare and they could have made some sort of progress as character and as people. we had to go BACK TO THE STATUS QUO

Once Again Arthurs Heart Is Hardened To Magic i hate it thanks

honestly look uther telling arthur that he’s a trusted ally in the fight against magic should make him feel a lot more distressed than what we got. i mean i’m sure he’s glad his cover is safe but he should realize that if uther approves he’s doing something wrong

furthermore, uther hasn’t changed a bit. he says he came to thank merlin and that merlin is a loyal servant and trusted ally, but then threatens his life before he leaves. honestly we should have just let arthur stab him

i do appreciate them making a point of mentioning that merlin was tempted to let uther die and that it would have been better for him if uther HAD died and he only did what he did to protect arthur but like...there were ways to do that that didn’t involve lying i think. this is an optimistic show most of the time. it wouldn’t have messed with my suspension of disbelief if arthur had dropped the sword knowing the real whole truth! but no, The Status Quo

i don’t know if i will still love arthur so much in the coming episodes.................we’ll see. i’m kind of nervous because i don’t know how they’re ever going to top this. i think we peaked right here and it’ll never be this good for me again

#personal #merlin blogging #this is.............literally so long sorry #no one is obligated to read it.#i doubt anyone would get to the end anyway #but i just needed to talk about all 1000000 of my feelings #tldr is im v proud of arthur and very mad at everyone else #which makes ME an annoying arthur stan now. oops!#liz's meta #liz's merlin stuff #not really but this post deserves a spot in the hall of fame #liz makes stuff

4 notes · View notes

ahopefuldoubt · 5 years

Text

somehow-you-will had asked: we've talked about this before informally in chat, but since you're taking analysis requests, i was wondering if you could expand on aaron and the rawness of his feelings re: the events of “deliver us,” especially measured against his siblings' reactions? if that even makes sense?? you know what i mean though :)

To preface, a few points from this analysis are going to appear in my breakdown of the well scene, which I’ve been working on for the past month+ but paused in order to focus on this. If I decide to finish it, I think/hope the two posts will dovetail fairly well (no pun intended?), instead of being carbon copies.

Among the strengths of the “Deliver Us” prologue is its depiction of an experience that is shared by the biological siblings, yet internalized by them in quite individual ways. Their different reactions to their separation, how they make sense of it and of each other, can be linked to their personal impressions and memories from this chaotic early-childhood event.

Because Miriam shepherds Moses’ passage down the Nile and sees the queen lift him safely from the basket, she essentially knows everything. Infant Moses is left with just a subconscious awareness of Yocheved’s lullaby. Later, it helps affirm his origins, but in the intervening years all he knows is that he is Egyptian. This is why these two are rather assured at the start of the well scene. They are secure in the information they have.

However, as I’ve written in pieces like my literary alchemy essay, the scene deconstructs all three siblings’ memories, throwing them off in some way. For Miriam and Moses, this means getting their knowledge and confidence overturned. It’s disquieting to watch Miriam first grapple with the shock and disappointment that her brother wasn’t told who he is, and then grow desperate to pass on the truth that only she holds solid, firsthand proof of. Even with this setback, which is sandwiched between two long periods of separation (yet another situation they all share), Moses never becomes a question in her mind. Indeed, she’s always had a clear vision of him, and her fortitude is her faith that they will be reunited. It’s a mindset that parallels the clarity/fullness of her memory. And, I feel, it’s a rebellious attitude: Separation. No! Reunion!

In the meantime, Moses becomes much less cocksure, and much more reflective. This section of the film gives him a lot to mull over, and his being a late-discovery adoptee is always a factor (added onto his being a baby at adoption and having no conscious memories of that day). For eighteen years, he’s unaware that there’s even a loss to process, so it’s not until he becomes absolutely certain of the truth, via the dream and wall-painting, that he can begin to acknowledge what happened. And he does: Discovering the facts surrounding his birth and adoption irrevocably changes his relationships with his adoptive parents, and prompts great confusion and doubt over his own identity and values.

Miriam’s and Moses’ reactions — described here in brief, if not really in nuance — can be traced to “Deliver Us” and reflect their perspectives and personalities. Of course, Aaron also experiences the events from the prologue, but there are things that are unique to his recall, and the way he responds emotionally stands out too, quite starkly.

Disbelief. Fear. Panic. Anger. Resentment. Mistrust.

Taken from the well scene and mud pit scene, these are raw emotions. Messy, and undignified, especially if compared to Miriam’s faith and patience. Though I can’t help but deeply appreciate the sincerity of both characters’ reactions, for me there’s a special significance to the rawness and messiness of Aaron’s feelings.

As mentioned above, his reaction, like those of his siblings, is rooted in memory and perspective. But whereas “Deliver Us” gives to Miriam a hope for the future and to Moses a means of confirming his origins, the sequence leaves Aaron without a real sense of closure. The last thing he sees is the basket disappear with his tiny brother on board; his memory is incomplete as a result. Many questions must naturally arise from this place of unclarity, including: What happened to Moses? (Is he alive?) Is he ever coming back? When is he coming back? (Why hasn’t he come back?) Does he care?

Aaron doesn’t spin hope from these questions. Instead, he carries the unrest that comes from knowing that he’s lost someone/family, but not knowing — not believing, not being sure — if they’ll be reunited, into the well scene, where Moses suddenly materializes and is all-at-once a ghost, a promise, a brother, a prince, a threat. Disbelief, fear, panic. I’ve written before that whatever meaning Aaron had formed in his mind about Moses — no matter how expectant or doubtful, or reliant on Miriam’s faith — it still lacks complete assurance, and it gets uprooted (deconstructed) by this initial reunion.

And actually those questions (e.g., Is Moses ever coming back? and Does he care?) receive answers during this scene. But, they’re not satisfying conclusions. They’re not even conclusions. In fact, I think the siblings’ meeting sparks fresh frustrations and misgivings, deepens lingering ones, for Aaron. And then, Moses disappears again.

Aaron’s emotions in the mud pit scene are also very raw. It’s remarkable that after all this time, the first thing he does is defend Miriam. He then goes on to voice doubt about God’s care for them, and to confront Moses about his past indifference. What this scene does is allow Aaron to release his hurt: regarding things that were/are unjust and upsetting, things that frankly do not make sense. Things like his sister’s (and people’s) disappointment and distress, but also his own disappointment and confusion and fractured faith. Things he has never had the chance, time or freedom to say to Moses. Anger, resentment, mistrust.

These feelings are connected to the well scene, as Aaron’s dialogue clearly shows, yet ultimately the set-up for his reaction rests in “Deliver Us.” How can a traumatic, disruptive event such as the one in the prologue not have lasting repercussions? The topic or theme of separation underpins essentially everything I write for this movie, for neither adoption nor reunion is possible without first experiencing loss. It seems to me that when it comes to making sense of their family’s separation, to pushing back against it, Miriam does so by hoping ever more tenaciously, and Aaron: he does so by having and letting loose all these messy, pained emotions.

(Question and reply are originally from 2017. Here I’d had an inkling, but this post was when I knew for sure. Aaron really means everything to me.)

#i love him so much #the prince of egypt #aaron #hope is hard to kill #my stuff #my writing #poe analysis #*#yeah me queue

4 notes · View notes

radiqueer · 6 years

Note

I’ve been trying to figure out how to contribute to the “born this way” conversation, but I’m not fully sure how to articulate my ideas. For me I feel like my identity... like I feel I was “born this way” like I’ve had intermittent dysphoria for as long as I can remember. But also as far as mspec labels go I could ID as pan, or poly, or Omni, but I’ve always felt bi fits and that’s the identity I choose. My partner tho, feels that they, more than anything, chose to be bi (1/2)

My partner feels that they had no inclination towards being anything other than a straight man until well into their thirties, when, due to a lot of factors, they decided any company was good company and decided to see if they liked being with men. They had a good experience, and they feel they could have left it at that but CHOSE to continue to pursue their attraction to men, and then much more recently, in doing their own research about gender identity and being around me (2/3 oops)

They chose to question their gender identity (which as of right now is inconclusive), and my partner feels happy as a bi questioning person, but also felt happy as a straight man and could have remained so but chose to be happy a different way. Idk it’s complicated/messy and I don’t really get it but it’s how my partner feels and I believe them. And then Political lesbianism is a thing. Idk it’s hard for me to wrap my head around I wish I could contribute more. It’s def not one size fits all tho

this makes a ton of sense, thanks for sharing!

I feel like - in a lot of ways, being queer and identifying as queer changed me as a person. it changed everything, from the way I think about and approach new topics, the way I see myself and the world, my politics, my tastes in books and art. queerness is fundamental to me, but I can conceive not being queer. if I didn’t know it was an option to identify this way, if I didn’t grow in a home that encouraged me to question and pursue new avenues, I would be a different person. and I cannot with any certainty say that I would definitely identify as queer at some point, if not at 14 then at 17, 19, 25, 40. I think I am happier for being queer, because it is relieving to share an experience and a community (things which have been difficult for me in the past) with people who love and support me. I like having a voice and an opinion on issues. I like my politics. I don’t like being discriminated against, but who does?

there are so many ways to have a fluid identity. you can be the same person all your life with the same experiences and label yourself differently over time. like your partner. one could be happy in one’s assigned roles but happier in a different set that they sought out and choose (kudos to your partner for keeping an open mind and allowing themselves to be happy in a non-normative way, btw), you can have a fluid identity that changes with time, you can be one thing and identify as another, you can refuse a labels on principle, you can be a political lesbian (or it’s equivalents, I suppose? I don’t know if we have something analogous to political lesbianism in other queer subgroups. I think certain parts of the ace community are the closest we’ve come)

the problem is the idea that there’s only one way to be and feel about queerness and identity and labels. which, IME, is what the BTW crowd seeks to do - normalise us because we are an expression of naturally occurring human diversity. we deserve equality because we are people, just slightly different, and we didn’t choose to be this way any more than you did. it’s not our fault! give us some money! [/s]

people who are written over by this narrative, in no particular order:

questioning people who don’t even know whether they’re straight - they may or may not be

nb people who are often told we are special snowflakes, a symptoms of the excesses of liberal/left wing politics. that we wouldn’t exist if not for the internet [true of me if not for you / ymmv]

bisexual and mspec people

people with fluid identities

people who choose to present a certain way

political [orientation]

people who are choosing to not labels themselves out of fear

people whose identity is informed by trauma

etc

the problem is the dichotomy that seems to be essential to this debate - that you can only have one or the other, that people on one side keep trying to erase the opposing narrative. I frankly don’t know. I’ve only been a part of this debate for a few months and all my thoughts about BTW are informed by personal experience and what I have stumbled across on tumblr. not a comprehensive start by any means. but ime it’s always the BTWs who are trying to shove differing narratives away, and not the choicers. maybe @korrasera and i have different experiences! in fact, I think we have very different experiences

The problem I’m trying to highlight, the whole reason I made this post, is that I’ve never seen someone suggest that only BTW is valid. In fact, the only times I’ve ever seen people discussing BTW was to specifically suggest that we have to do whatever we can to erase it as an idea because they perceive it as being inherently exclusionary, as though the existence of people who were BTW meant that people could not be queer, gay, lesbian, or trans without having been born in that state. I think it’s a reasonable assumption to consider such intentions as being somewhat noble, since they’re meant to criticize and deconstruct social constructs of legitimacy, but I literally never see the topic raised without it being ‘let’s get rid of the idea that BTW people exist, it’s not true and it hurts the cause’.

[emphasis added all mine; taken from this post]

I have a different experience. I’ve seen BTW discussed as the only right way to be, and not only by exclusionists (I wouldn’t be able to find receipts on this - I remade my blog recently, and lost all my likes and the people I was following). even when I talk to people irl, I’m forced to resort to a narrative I don’t have any stake in to get my point across, a narrative that doesn’t help me. it’s frustrating and alienating. and I still don’t think we should do away with BTW. I think we make room for people like me to exist and talk, and define clearly what it means so more people can figure out whether or not they fit.

I read around some while I was writing this post, so here’s some stuff tangential but essential to my thoughts:

this post about the relationship of radfems to what constitutes essential womanhood

this post by the same user about why some people may choose a certain labels

another post by the same user

this post, which possibly everyone has read, but I was thinking about this part (emphasis mine)

My girlfriend Marna has been a queer activist since the late 80s. She’s told me about the incredible deliberation and debates LGBTQ+ activists had, in the late 90s and early 00s as the community began to see past the AIDS crisis and immediate goals of “surviving a plague” and “burying our dead.” There were a lot of things we wanted to achieve, but we had to decide how to allocate our scarce reserves of money, labour, publicity, and public goodwiil. Those were the discussions that decided the next big goals we’d pursue were same-sex marriage equality and legal recognition of medical gender transition.

From hearing her tell it, it seems like it was actually a wrenching decision, because it absolutely left a lot of people in the dust. A lot of people, her included, had broad agendas based on sexual freedom and the rights of people to do whatever they wanted with their bodies and consenting partners—and they agreed to put their broader concerns aside and drill down, very specifically, onto the rights of cis gays and lesbians to marry, and the ability to legally change your sex and gender.

As a political tactic it was terrifically effective. […]

Activists of 20 years ago chose to sideline and diminish efforts to blur and abolish the gender binary. Efforts to promote alternative family structures, including polyamorous families and non-sexual bonds between non-related adults. Efforts to fight the Christian cultural message that sex is dirty, sinful, bad, and in need of containment. Efforts to promote sexual pleasure as a positive good.

I couldn’t tell you why these posts stuck out to me while I was writing this, but they do a better job, by and large, of contextualising what I’ve said here

#sorry for hijacking ur point into a longwinded ramble #it stands pretty damn well on its own #im just rambly #original #born this way

9 notes · View notes

mrsspidermanmaryjanewatsonparker · 6 years

Quote

The thing is, Spider-Man is a mystery to his general public -- he could be anyone under that mask. No one would know about his marital status -- or even give it much thought, unless they were enemies looking to strike at him through loved ones. In those pre-“Brand-New-Day” stories, it wasn't really Spider-Man who was married, it was Peter Parker. And Peter for the most part works best as a young, single guy. I would never say he should never marry. But he certainly should not be married to Mary Jane Watson. That's just crazy. The only way the writers were able to keep that marriage going on the printed page for as long as they did was by changing who Pete and MJ were, by turning them into different people. And a lot of talented writers worked on Spider-Man during that period, doing their best, but that marriage never quite worked for to me. It was like hearing about two old friends who'd run off and made this terrible mistake.

Roger Stern

Proponents of single Spidey often use this specific quote to back up their positions so let’s deconstruct it a little shall we?

“The thing is, Spider-Man is a mystery to his general public – he could be anyone under that mask. No one would know about his marital status – or even give it much thought, unless they were enemies looking to strike at him through loved ones. In those pre-“Brand-New-Day” stories, it wasn’t really Spider-Man who was married, it was Peter Parker. ”

This is just a pointless talking point to bring up.

Let’s pretend we buy into his logic and claim his marital status only matters in so far as villains striking at him through his loved ones.

Well during the marriage...exactly that happened...a lot...

In fact it happened BEFORE the marriage multiple times famously with Gwen Stacy at the hands of a villain Stern loved and wasn’t entirely against being brought back. He was against actually bringing Norman back in his own run but when someone else did it he happily wrote the character’s origin story in the 3 part mini-series Revenge of the Green Goblin.

Part and parcel of that story was Norman targeting Peter’s loved ones.

So Stern’s point here doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny.

He’s treating the idea that marriage is irrelevant to Spider-Man unless his wife can be targeted as incidental and a small deal when historically it just hasn’t been, it’s been HUGE.

Now let’s stop pretending and acknowledge that the rest of Stern’s logic here is really, really, really broken.

Sure the general public don’t care if Spider-Man is married because he is a mystery to them. But we aren’t reading the series for the general public we’re reading it for Spider-Man himself. He isn’t a mystery to US the readers.

Moreover Stern is making a frankly alarmingly naive distinction between Peter Parker and Spider-Man.

‘Spider-Man wasn’t married. Peter Parker was.’

But Peter Parker IS Spider-Man.

It’s not even a Clark Kent/Superman or Bruce Wayne/Batman deal, wherein (in some incarnations) one identity is mostly a pretence in service of the other.

The character’s civilian and superhero life are two legitimate aspects of who he is. He doesn’t put on an act of pretence in either identity beyond the denial that he even has another identity.

Spider-Man IS Peter’s personality but he’s just making use of different traits, much the same way we are not the same person we are at work as we are at home with our friends and family.

In talking as though that isn’t the reality of the situation Stern is either revealing a level of ignorance I don’t believe of him or else is being disingenuous in support of his argument/agenda.

It gets worse when you consider that the premise of the series since day 1 has intrinsically involved the events of one half of Peter’s life impacting upon the other.

Not stopping the burglar as Spider-Man leads to the man who lives in Peter Parker’s home dying.

Hearing an inspiring speech by Johnny Storm as Peter Parker pushes him to fight Doc Ock as Spider-Man.

Foiling the Green Goblin’s gangland schemes as Spider-Man, but also causing Norman Osborn’s son to (allegedly) take drugs prompts the villain to hate Peter AND Spider-Man and target Peter’s girlfriend whom dies in a battle where Peter is Spider-Man.

Peter’s life has always involved one half bleeding over into the other to one degree or another. In fact in the Ditko run his primary motivation almost was to earn money to support Aunt May but he did this by taking pictures of himself AS Spider-Man to then as Peter Parker sell to the Bugle who slandered Spider-Man.

So Stern is saying just...nothing in this initial statement. Peter Parker being married IMPACTS upon Spider-Man’s life and vice versa.

“And Peter for the most part works best as a young, single guy.”

Yeah no he doesn’t.

He wasn’t single in the best parts of the Gerry Conway’s run.

He wasn’t single for most of the Straczynski or Sacasa runs.

He wasn’t single for MOST of the Lee/Ditko run or the Lee/Romita run.

He wasn’t single in Kraven’s Last Hunt.

He wasn’t single in the Owl/Octopus War.

He wasn’t even REALLY single in Spider-Man vs. Wolverine.

He wasn’t single in the Death of Gwen Stacy.

Oh and he wasn’t single in STERN’S OWN RUN!

He also wasn’t ‘young’ in a lot of these and other great stories.

In Stern’s run he was 23-24 and working to support himself and Black Cat after leaving student life behind him.

In Lee’s run he was young yes but with adult responsibilities such as supporting Aunt May and towards the end of Lee’s run looking to be a provider for Gwen whom he had ambitions to marry.

He was an adult in the Death of Jean DeWolff which dealt in distinctly adult subject matter.

He was an adult in the Owl/Octopus War, Kraven’s Last Hunt, ASM #400, Spec #200, Hobogblin Lives (also by Stern himself) and the JMS run, Renew Your Vows or basically any high calibre story you can think of during the marriage.

So no.

Spider-Man doesn’t ‘for the most part’ work better as young or single.

He works great either way.

“I would never say he should never marry.”

And there it is.

Pro-single Spidey guys just IGNORE this part of Stern’s quote where he doesn’t disagree with Spidey being married in theory thereby gutting most of their arguments that cite this quote.

“But he certainly should not be married to Mary Jane Watson. That’s just crazy. The only way the writers were able to keep that marriage going on the printed page for as long as they did was by changing who Pete and MJ were, by turning them into different people.”

You know what’s crazy?

One of the most acclaimed and experienced comic book writers of all time not being able to recognize blatently obvious examples of character development when they’re right in front of him.

Or in fact claiming it was arbitrary changes to the characters when he himself initiated some of it.

People forget this but the first time we ever got an inkling that MJ had a sister whom she felt guilty over wasn’t in DeFalco’s run with Frenz it was in Stern and Romita Junior’s run.

STERN was working in some character development which fundamentally changed how the readers perceived Mary Jane, but then disingenuously he has turned around and pretended it was cheap arbitrary changes in service of a status quo and not character driven.

What’s worse is that his logic not only falls apart when you look at the organic development and characterization for Peter and MJ leading up to and in the early days of the marriage, it actually doesn’t even make sense preceding Stern’s run.

Much like Marv Wolfman Stern seems to have adopted an attitude that Conway’s 1970s ASM run somehow doesn’t count and MJ happened to close that door at the end of the Death of Gwen Stacy, but it didn’t really mean or amount to anything.

Except yes it totally did.

That was the start of MJ’s evolution as a character wherein she transformed into a different person who could believably be in a long term relationship with Peter.

Him marrying her back THEN made sense!

#Roger Stern #Spider-Man #Peter Parker #mjwatsonedit #MJ Watson #mary jane watson #Mary Jane Watson Parker #Marvel #marvel comics #Gerry Conway #Stan Lee #Tom DeFalco #J.M. DeMatteis #Peter David

12 notes · View notes

gcintheme-blog · 7 years

Text

Debunking Serano’s “Debunking”

Julia Serano believes he has “debunked” radical feminists in this article published on his blog yesterday. I would like to take some time to deconstruct Serano’s arguments and debunk trans activism’s “debunking.” Because of all the fallacies and straw men in the article, this post will be a long one. Grab a snack and join me. Serano, this is rhetorically addressed to you.

Your second sentence in this article:

From pre-interview conversations we shared, I knew that my interviewer planned to ask me about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s comments from earlier this year wherein she claimed that trans women are not women.

And in the article you link to for a source:

Adichie, who is not transgender, responded: “So when people talk about, you know, ‘Are trans women women?’ — my feeling is trans women are trans women.”

Notice how you’re dishonest in the second sentence of this article? You begin by touting yourself and your interview for the New York Times, and then immediately, falsely, cast skeptical feminists like Adichie as the villains. While I wouldn’t disagree with Adichie if she had said trans women aren’t women, she didn’t say that and you begin your piece by framing “popular” feminists (Adichie and women like her) as a natural enemy.

Moving on, you talk about your own book for a while, and then:

Women who insist that trans women are not women often object to being called “cis women” under the false assumption that it somehow undermines their femaleness — this is not at all the purpose of this language....In other words, referring to someone as “cisgender” simply means that they have not had a transgender experience.

You do not get to determine other people's analysis of your writing, especially if you want to falsely put words in Adichie's mouth. If you are going to claim that trans feelings are what matter over other people speaking, then you cannot simultaneously tell anyone who feels undermined by putting a prefix on our oppression that we are wrong.

I could say "In other words, referring to someone as 'he' simply means he was born with a penis and has been treated accordingly by society" and you'd call me a bigot. You cannot support, for instance, the idea that misgendering a trans person is violence if the alleged offender meant no harm because according to your logic, the intent of words matters more than the effect.

How many times have women heard men tell us not to take their words negatively? “Calm down!” “Relax!” “It’s a compliment!” This is tired.

While some cisgender people refuse to take our experiences seriously, the fact of the matter is that transgender people can be found in virtually every culture and throughout history.

This is not an argument. Sexism has occurred in virtually every culture and throughout history. So has rape, murder, and child abuse. Longevity is not relevant. You cannot argue that it lends legitimacy or validates your claims.

While cis feminists who claim that trans women are not women obsess over questions of identity (“How can a ‘man’ possibly call ‘himself’ a woman?”), they purposefully overlook or play down the fact that we have very real life experiences as women.

Actually, we don't obsess over your identity. You do. Radical feminists are focused on material problems whereas you are the one constantly blowing about identity validation. I have never asked how a man can call himself a woman because society allows men to call themselves anything they want, including the biologically impossible.

You do not have experiences as a woman. You have experiences as a man masquerading as a woman. They will never be the same as our experiences.

Forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism.

Spaces free from men does help our goal by allowing us to organize women like you to come and tell us who we are and what our goals should be. Men forcing themselves into women's spaces is sexism.

Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant.

A man has never become pregnant. Where are women who do not menstruate or are unable to become pregnant complaining like you are? I have never become pregnant and never once did I doubt that I'm a woman. Society has treated me from birth as a female with the potential to become pregnant. You do not have that potential.

Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters.

Women do not have penises. Diversity in vulvas and vaginas is not a penis. We can evaluate the sex of 99% of the people we come across at first glance. I PROMISE you that men know I have a vagina when they sexually harass me on the street even though they can't see it.

When I lived in Spain as an Iraqi girl, I was sometimes mistaken for a person of Romani heritage and treated as such. (One specific incident comes to mind where I was patiently waiting to use a cash machine and the current user tried to shoo me away, believing I would try to rob her.) While my phenotype might appear to be that of a Roma girl to some people and I have had “real experiences” of being an Iraqi mistaken for a Roma person, that doesn’t make me Romani. It doesn’t give me the history of the Romani people or the struggle of their daily lives and common discrimination.

And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end?

Possibly the idea that a woman is a collection of stereotypes rather than a biologically oppressed class? Acknowledging I have a vagina and my life has been a certain way because of it is not reductive. I never said it defines me; it makes my life significantly different from yours and as a radical feminist I am trying to fight against that. You're the only one using that argument.

So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women.

Biology is directly tied to our oppression. We need to point that out to fight the oppression. Is it a black person playing into racism by pointing out that she is black? Is a Jew hypocritical for pointing out that antisemitism happens to her because she is Jewish? During the Holocaust, people with Jewish heritage who self-identified as atheists were STILL murdered along with practicing Jews. They couldn't identify themselves out of the ghettos or the concentration camps because your identifarianism is made up.

The main thrust of this assertion is that women are women because of socialization and/or their experiences with sexism. But what about me then?

It's NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU.

You're not a woman. There is your answer.

Or what about young trans girls who socially transition early in life, and who never have the experience of being perceived or treated as a man?

Socialization literally starts in the uterus. There are cultures with superstitions that doing certain things will "curse" a pregnant woman with a female infant. I can see you don't spend a lot of time with children (alhamdulillah--thank god) because you would see how early that socialization begins and reflects in their behavior. I’ve already written about how society disadvantages female infants.

A young girl is forced against her will to live as a boy. Upon reaching adulthood, after years of male socialization and privilege, she comes out about identifying as female and begins to live as a woman. Do you accept her as a woman?

Children are not forced against their will to live as their biological sex because biological sex is natural trait for human beings . Children are forced to conform to gender roles but your insistence that womanhood is just a collection of those roles is actually upholding the problem.

Saying "you are a boy" is not the same as being told what “boy” socially entails, or that you cannot do feminine-labeled things because you are a boy. You were NEVER a young girl so don't act like a victim in that sense. I'm sorry society forces children to uphold gender roles but radical feminists are the ones out here fighting them.

More often than not, people who claim that trans women aren’t women make both the biology and socialization arguments simultaneously, even though they are seemingly contradictory (i.e., if biology is the predominant criteria, then one’s socialization shouldn’t matter, and vice versa).

Biology is the basis of that socialization. Radical feminists are not arguing conflicting ideologies. We acknowledge that socialization is assigned to us based on our material and unchangeable biological sex. This is not contradictory in any way.

Much like their homophobic counterparts who make appeals to biology (“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”)

Creationism is not biology. You're trying to undermine biology and evolution with an example that you know is religious and not scientific at all.

The trans-women-aren’t-women crowd desperately throws the entire kitchen sink at us rather than attempting to make a coherent argument.

I think I've made a very coherent argument but trans activists ignore that argument and set up straw men, like you just did in the sentence immediately before this one. You're the one who has it wrong.

While gender socialization is quite real, all of us are capable of overcoming or transcending the socialization that we experienced as children.

So now you're acknowledging gender socialization but saying we can overcome it. This is blaming women for our own oppression because we cannot socialize or identify ourselves out of it. Even trans men cannot escape their socialization and the attacks against their female biology like anti-abortion laws.

If I could transcend my socialization, I wouldn't wear makeup, but my job requires me to look "presentable" and this means wearing makeup in my society. If I could transcend my socialization, I would be much firmer with men who interrupt me but I know they will likely react with more hostility and I have to prioritize my safety over shedding stereotypes. It's hardly an option really.

The "Male Energy" and "Male Privilege" Fallacies

The way you've put "male privilege" in quotation marks and followed with the word "fallacies" makes me extremely nervous for this next section because it sounds like you don't believe male privilege exists. But I will read and judge fairly...

In my many years of being perceived by the world as a cisgender woman, I have never once had anyone claim to detect “male privilege” or “male energy” in me.

This is because your male socialization means you are more likely to react with hostility or violence when being criticized, and our female socialization makes us less likely to criticize men, out of fear or concern for your feelings over ours.

Do you think male-identified males have these conversations with women or with each other all the time? I have never told a man he exudes "male energy." I've never even heard of this. It's bizarre. It’s also unrealistic to believe people tell you every thought they have about you. I’m sure people have thought things about me—both flattering and unflattering—that they’ve kept to themselves.

Male privilege is a very real thing. In my booking Whipping Girl, I talk at length about my own personal experiences of having it, and subsequently losing it post-transition.

Why do you have male privilege in quotation marks in every previous line? It's very obvious you don't think it applies to you as you've stated this directly. That's the same line of thinking I've heard from most male self-identified "feminists" who really just want to deny their own culpability. We've all heard it.

The fact that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd constantly harp about trans women’s real or imagined male privilege, yet refuse to acknowledge or examine their own cisgender privilege, demonstrates that their concerns about privilege are disingenuous.

"Trans women's real or imagined male privilege." So which is it then? You aren't putting forth a coherent argument.

Cisgender privilege is not real. Women are not privileged more than men in the world, and accepting the reality of your body and how it means you are treated in the world is not a privilege unless you argue that being transgender is a mental illness, in which case those without that mental illness do have some advantages. But the trans lobby takes offense to that.

There are numerous problems with this line of reasoning [that trans males are caricatures of women]:

1) It relies on a highly negative view of feminine gender expression (that I have debunked in my writings) and implies that conventionally feminine cisgender women are also behaving superficially and/or reinforcing stereotypes.

If you do believe that women are an oppressed group, then naturally if follows the oppressed group cannot be blamed for their participation in that system to the same extent as the oppressors.

I have been socialized from birth to act feminine according to my culture’s standards. You haven’t. When you imply that acting out my oppression make you oppressed too, it’s insulting. First, it makes a joke of what I am forced to do to live safely, and second, it implies if I acted differently, I wouldn’t be oppressed as a woman, which isn’t true.

2) It ignores the many trans women who are outspoken feminists and/or not conventionally feminine.

Lots of men call themselves feminists but it doesn't make them feminists or make them women. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t make you a feminist any more than calling yourself a woman makes you a woman. (It doesn’t make you those things at all.)

3) Trans women do not transition out of a desire to be feminine; we transition out of a self-understanding that we are or should be female (commonly referred to as gender identity).

If there is no discernible biological condition that defines someone as a woman, as you argue before, then what are you transitioning to?

You are just adopting feminine stereotypes (but picking and choosing, mind you) and saying that makes you a woman. It doesn’t. Womanhood isn’t a feeling or an inner identity and to imply this is anti-woman because it sets the foundation for blaming us for our own position within an oppressed class.

4) Trans women who are conventionally feminine are not in any way asserting or insinuating that all women should be conventionally feminine, or that femininity is all there is to being a woman. Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves, not to critique or caricature other women.

You are asserting that feminine stereotypes make you a woman instead of what you are: a feminine man. And, by your language “[imply that] femininity is all there is to being a woman” you are implying that femininity (which is a set of cultural stereotypes) is at least part of being a woman. This is in conflict with your “identification only” mantra and it is proven false by every proud gender non-conforming woman and man out there.

5) This line of reasoning accuses trans women of arrogantly presuming to know what cis women experience, when we do no such thing. In reality, it’s the cis women who forward this accusation that are the ones arrogantly presuming to know what trans women experience and what motivates us.

You literally said in your last point: “Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves.” I do not dress the way I do in order to express myself; I dress this way in order to avoid violence in an extremely patriarchal society where women are expected to be covered or attacked. You just claimed to know my experience and motivations and you got it completely wrong.

As a trans woman, I will be the first to admit that I cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels on the inside.

Then why have you spent this entire article constructing straw man arguments and insisting radical feminists believe things that we simply don’t? Your second sentence was a lie about something feminist and woman Chimimanda Ngozi Adichie said. How could you assume you have anything in common with us?

But the thing is, the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels either!

Actually, I do know what other women experience and feel because I am a woman. We have a shared experience as an oppressed class that you are not a part of. I’m glad you are acknowledging that you don’t know how we feel, but women around the world have the common experience of our biology and our socialization as the lesser sex according to that biology.

It’s the cis women who attempt to exclude us who seem to have a singular superficial stereotypical notion of what constitutes a woman, or of what women experience.

When you call the shared experiences of women under patriarchy “a singular superficial notion” you are arguing that sexism does not exist. Sexism has to have a definition in order to fight against it and that definition is the oppression of women as a class of people based on our reproductive biology.

Some cis feminists will extrapolate from this [trans people’s claims of sexed brains] that all trans people must hold highly essentialist beliefs about female-versus-male brains, and therefore that we are an affront to feminism. Often, they will make this case while simultaneously making essentialist claims themselves (e.g., regarding reproductive capacities) in order to undermine our identities.

The idea of different male and female brains is an affront to feminism because we know scientifically that our brains house our personality traits, intelligence, and memory and thus significantly affects how we act within society. Arguing that women have fundamentally different brains from men supports sexism by allowing men to argue our social circumstances are actually brought about by biological determination and that our lower place within society is valid because we are less intelligent or naturally drawn to certain tasks.

As a biologist, you should know that genitals serve a completely different purpose than the brain and does lead to different lived experiences for men and women. Even without the social construct of gender, women have pregnancies and men do not. To point out that male and female genitals are different is acknowledging material reality, whereas you are trying to construct your arguments upon subjective “identities.”

Radical feminists argue this material reality should not place women at a lower position within society or designate certain roles for us that have nothing to do with biology. Radical feminists accept our realities as people with vaginas and uteruses and the biological consequences of those things. What we do not accept is the unnecessary and oppressive social roles that have been created based upon them.

But here’s the thing: Rachel Dolezal is one person. In sharp contrast (as I alluded to earlier), transgender people are a pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon, and comprise approximately 0.2 – 0.3% of the population.

Prevalence does not make something good or healthy. A lot more than 0.3% of the population is sexist and that doesn’t mean sexism should be accepted in society. Since you can’t undermine that Rachel Dolezal acted out stereotypes and then called herself a black person and how this is directly linked to the trans phenomenon, you’re trying to argue that the problem is small.

According to the American news networks, white people “identify” as people of color to check those boxes on university and job applications to take advantage of affirmative action all the time. People confess to doing it. So the problem of people moving into spaces designated for certain marginalized groups—including people of color and women—is not small like you make it out to be.

I am Iraqi and I plan to study in the United States which means I have to require a special visa and still face possible rejection as a result of Trump’s travel ban on my country. (I’m not a Muslim, but the ban targets Muslim-majority countries and I live in one.) Still, I checked “white” on my university applications because it clearly states Middle Eastern people are white during that process. Marginalized Americans worked hard for those distinctions and I will not undermine their work by claiming to be someone I’m not. Maybe we can discuss a separate Middle Eastern category in the future, but I’m not going to claim to be black or Pacific Islander.

I have never once in my life heard a trans woman claim that our experiences are 100 percent identical to those of cis women.

Then what is your article even about? Why does the idea of women having our own spaces without trans women bother you? What is under threat here? Your “identity,” as you state above?

The problem isn’t that we (i.e., trans women) refuse to acknowledge any differences, but rather that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd refuses to acknowledge our many similarities.

Feminism doesn’t focus on similarities because sexism doesn’t. “Why don’t we just all come together because we aren’t that different” says the person in a position of institutional power. Society tells people we are different and then as soon as you want something we have (that you have relegated us to) you claim to be just like us. Please.

There was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when many heterosexual feminists wanted to similarly exclude lesbians from women’s organizations and from feminism. The justifications that they forwarded were eerily similarly to trans-women-aren’t-women arguments: They accused lesbians of being “oppressively male” and of “reinforcing the sex class system.”

Lesbians are women and feminism is the movement to liberate women from sexism. Lesbians are biologically female and therefore women, whereas you are not. Many previous “feminists” have been racist and antisemitic as well, but people with common sense know black women and Jewish women are adult human females and therefore included in feminism. Biological males do not belong in feminism. Do not appropriate the struggles of lesbians.

Trans women are women. We may not be “exactly like” cis women, but then again, cis women are not all “exactly like” one another either. But what we do share is that we all identify and move through the world as women.

No, you are not women. You are biologically male and socialized as boys and then men. Not all women are exactly alike but we all have the shared experience of being biologically female and being treated accordingly. You do not have that experience. You do not move through the world as a woman, but as a man pretending he is a woman.

I said at the outset, forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism. In fact, it only serves to undermine our collective cause.

Sexism is rooted in biological sex. You are a biological male and in this way you are distinct from biological females and we do not have to include you in our mission to liberation ourselves from oppression by men.

What is our collective cause? What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them? What are you doing to help women other than writing about how we exclude you because you are a man? How do you define sexism?

Your piece is riddled with incoherent arguments and you attempt to paint radical feminism as illogical when, in fact, radical feminism can be used to logically dismantle all your arguments and point to a clear foundation for women’s oppression.

This work starts with a falsehood and ends with a vague assertion that feminists, by asking for our own spaces free from men, are hurting ourselves when actually, you have only argued how these actions hurt you and men like you. You have blamed women for our own oppression throughout this article and yet you expect us to take you in with open arms and validate your identity because that is the only thing that you believe ties you to womanhood.

It doesn’t, and we’re not here to entertain you.

#julia serano #trans activism #gender critical #radical feminism #transgender #theory #debunked

305 notes · View notes

owl-eyed-woman · 7 years

Text

Attack on Titan Season 2 Episode Analysis - Episode 6 (Episode 31)

Since we only just resolved this season’s first arc, I had assumed that this episode would consist solely of characters’ reflections on past events and set up for future ones. I am happy to report that this episode is a little more eventful to say the least.

First though, we do need to recover after last week’s emotionally draining conclusion and recap exactly where we are at. On that note, I am so, so happy to see that Ymir is alive (though comatose). I was genuinely saddened at the thought of her being dead, even if that death made logical, emotional and motivational sense. Still though, it definitely makes sense that Ymir has survived - I mean, if Eren could survive being almost digested, surely Ymir can survive losing a chunk of her digestive tract? Titan shifters are clearly made of much sterner stuff.

With Ymir out of commission so to speak, Christa (or should I call her Historia?) has to explain the situation to Hanji and defend Ymir’s actions. As Historia argues, even though Ymir hid vital information, in the end she used her powers to save her comrades, proving her loyalty. Furthermore, while Ymir concealed many vital secrets, she was motivated by the simple (read: selfish) aim of protecting herself, rather than any nefarious conspiracy. Hanji, too, completely understands that Ymir has the potential to be a great asset to humanity, as long as they can ensure that she is first and foremost an ally.

I feel like we’re seeing the psychological impact of Christa reasserting her identity last episode as she successfully convinces Hanji; Christa is really coming into her own as Historia (I’m still getting used to writing that name XD)! Historia’s gentle appearance and manner has always belied her fierce determination and formidable strength, so I love seeing this strong side.

There’s still something else hanging in the air that needs to be addressed though. As Hanji brings up Christa’s true identity, Historia Reiss, a pained, pensive expression crosses Historia’s face. For Historia, this name brings a painful weight, along with countless bad memories. So when Hanji comfortingly pats her shoulder and says “nice to meet you”, this oppressive weight almost immediately lifts and the mood changes palpably. In this one line, Hanji reframes Historia’s reclamation of her name, not as a resurrection of pain and strife, but rather, as a new beginning. Yes, it’s only a very short scene, but there’s always time for some character development!

But these brief scenes are basically all moot compared to the real meat of this episode; and that is Reiner. I thought I had a handle on who Reiner was as a person. Sure, there was a lot I didn’t know about him, but I still thought that after all this time I understood who he was in a general sense. Boy, was I wrong! The moral of the story is don’t get cocky, I guess.

We first see Reiner struggling to climb onto the top of the wall with his injured arm. Noticing this, Eren immediately goes to help him, holding out his hand which Reiner accepts without hesitation. By introducing Reiner here, this brief scene reinforces our basic understanding of Reiner and Eren’s relationship; they are comrades who unconditionally trust each other. The camera lingers on the shot of their gripped hands, a symbol of camaraderie, trust and unity.

This is all very basic stuff, but it is crucial setup for Reiner’s eventual betrayal. From the beginning, the show is hinting that something is up through multiple shots of Reiner (and Bertholdt) reflected in puddles. It’s a concise, elegant way too remind us that there is more to Reiner than meets the eye and that we will soon be seeing another side to him. This quick scene at the beginning of the episode quickly establishes a foundational understanding of Reiner’s place in the characters’ minds, which the show can now start to complicate, deconstruct, and, in the end, destroy.

Reflecting on the night’s events, Reiner begins to freak out about his very recent near-death experience. In my episode 4 analysis, I wrote about how Reiner exemplified the show’s critique of the ideal of heroic sacrifice. To recap, Reiner’s actions in episode 4, though superficially heroic, are ultimately presented as foolhardy, impulsive and unnecessary. Interestingly, Reiner realises this as well, reeling at his actions and blind heroism. In this moment, Reiner confronts his own mortality and he’s honestly not handling it well.

Reiner, as we have heretofore understood him, has embodied three essential ideas: bravery, loyalty and stability; basically the perfect soldier. In this one scene, the show begins to break this down by showing us that behind his brave actions lies very real fear and weakness.

Throughout this scene Bertholdt looks on with an intensely stressed expression on his face. As a side note, I have to say Bertholdt is perhaps one of the most enigmatic characters in the show. Until this episode, I would have simply dismissed him as unremarkable and frankly, forgettable. I mean, the only thing I could have said about him was that he is tall and strong – it’s almost hilarious how these two seemingly mundane facts actually function as clues to his real identity.

It’s hard to express how weird, awkward and generally unsettling this scene is, along with the episode as a whole. What should be a comforting moment of safety and contemplation for our characters never materialises, with everyone palpably unsettled, stressed and clearly still on guard.

This feeling only intensifies when Hannes confirms what we’ve known for a while now: there is no hole in the wall. In the face of such an inexplicable mystery, the only option is to retreat to Trost and regroup. As they start to walk off though, Reiner asks Eren to stay back for a moment and we finally get to the big reveal of this episode.

Now, AOT is a show built on shocking twists and turns and it’s really, really good at them. The problem with this however is that after a while the audience inevitably becomes accustomed to these reveals and they no longer shock like they used to; AOT’s unpredictability becomes, in a sense, predictable. Additionally, viewers get better at figuring out the twist well in advance. I think a lot of people had already figured out that Reiner is the Armoured Titan (it’s the hair isn’t it?). So how do you make a reveal like this shocking without the audience rolling their eyes and smugly thinking that they’re way ahead of the show? - Context and framing!

You see, AOT knows that after 30 episodes the audience doesn’t just expect a twist; they also expect a certain amount of melodrama and set up before the twist is revealed. Historically, information that is this important and this world shattering doesn’t just get told to us or to the characters. They have to fight tooth and nail, risking their lives for it.

So to have this twist calmly revealed by Reiner so unceremoniously with no setup or conflict whatsoever, it’s not only a surprise; it’s just wrong. Paradoxically, it’s how completely and utterly anti-climactic this reveals is that makes it so, so shocking and so effective. This is absolutely world-changing information, and both Reiner and the show itself are treating it like a run-of-the-mill conversation - like it doesn’t matter at all! In this way, even if the specifics of information aren’t necessarily shocking, the way in which it is presented to the audience definitely is! It’s using our own understanding of dramatic and storytelling conventions against us and it’s pretty genius.

This is all wonderfully and effectively supported by cinematic language. There’s no dramatic music, no intense, emotional close-ups; just a cold, disinterested distance. Every shot and edit all works together to express both the mundanity and the abruptness of this revelation, so I’m going to spend the next section unpacking it!

We start with a shot focused on Mikasa in the foreground as she walks out of frame, leaving Eren, Reiner and Bertholdt in the background. Now, this isn’t a good shot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, it’s dreadfully ordinary and incompetent. This shot isn’t trying to be visually compelling though. Instead, it’s actively trying to misdirect and distract us.

By focusing initially on Mikasa, our attention is immediately drawn away from the three boys. Furthermore, the blocking of the characters is incredibly awkward and uncommonly inexpressive, with Eren and Reiner facing away from the camera. Every bit of this framing tells us one thing, loudly and proudly; nothing noteworthy is happening. The shot is literally telling us to not pay attention.

Then Reiner calmly says that he and Bertholdt destroyed the wall 5 years ago and that their ultimate aim is to destroy humanity. We’re not even shown his face as he says this! This is one of the craziest, most revolutionary reveals of the show, and it is presented to us, cinematically and contextually, as if Reiner were talking about the weather.

No time to register this information though, as the show immediately cuts to Hanji pondering how the titans could have appeared within the wall. We’re already taking a second longer to process what Reiner just revealed after we pre-emptively dismissed it; now, this medium shot of Hanji’s intense but irrelevant contemplation actively tries to distract us again.

Then, as Reiner admits that he is the Armoured titan and Bertholdt is the Colossal titan, we cut to a wide shot of the scouts walking away from this scene, highlighting their obliviousness to the traitors in their midst. At this point, we’ve caught up with the implications of what Reiner is saying, but with the multiple points of focus, giving us a lot to process visually. This, along with the lowered volume of Reiner’s dialogue further limits our ability to absorb the true implications of this information remains limited.

It’s all so masterfully done. I am consistently impressed by how well-made and thought out this show is, and how, against all odds, it manages to stay fresh after all this time. Bravo.

Now, as this scene unfolds, I assumed that everyone’s uneasy demeanour was just a general reaction to the frankly confusing situation they’ve found themselves in. However, as we flashback 12 hours earlier, we are shown that the whole scout corps already suspected something amiss with Reiner and Bertholdt. Thus, another layer of complexity is added to this scene and the charged atmosphere is reconfigured as a feeling of anticipation and hyperawareness.

For the 104th cadets, it’s important to understand just how much they trust Reiner. Reiner was like a brother to them, a rock of the team if you will. Their loyalty to him is so deep that they almost can’t believe that he could have been conspiring against them this whole time. Thus, this part of the episode works to further destroy one previously foundational aspect of our understanding of Reiner: loyalty.

As the facts pile up against Reiner, Eren continues to defend him though, becoming increasingly distressed at the mere suggestion that he could be a traitor. After all he’s been through with Reiner and Bertholdt, as friends and soldiers, it’s almost impossible for him to conceive of them as enemies. Tragically, Eren’s only error here is that he’s too loyal and too trusting. In any other situation, these would be admirable traits. But when everyone is a potential threat and the wrong decision could mean the eradication of humanity, Eren’s naivety means he is ill-equipped to deal with the situation at hand.

You see, Eren is inherently idealistic (or to be cruel, naïve) and truly believes in humanity and his comrades. This unwavering belief in the value of humanity is essential to his triumphs, as it gives him the strength to overcome impossible odds and prevail over the greatest despair. However, in order to retain this idealistic view of a cruel world, Eren has been forced to adopt an incredibly black and white understanding of morality. In Eren’s mind, you’re either intrinsically good and trustworthy, or you’re irredeemably evil and monstrous.

Crucially though, Eren naively assumes that reality reflects his view of the world and is unable to conceive of anything that falls outside of this stark dichotomy of good and evil. Dangerously, this blinds him to the reality of the world and makes him more vulnerable to manipulation. Additionally, because his worldview and ideals are continuously and cruelly challenged, with people proving themselves more complicated than this, Eren is inevitably traumatised precisely because of his strict adherence to such a rigid understanding of humanity.

So in the face Reiner and Bertholdt’s betrayal, let’s just say Eren isn’t going to deal with it well. Still, with all this in mind, he actually does a pretty good job defusing the situation and placating Reiner, trying to react as anyone would to such a preposterous proposal by playing it off as a delusion or even a joke. Bertholdt seems all too eager to use this as an out – he too is flying by the seat of his pants – and enthusiastically agrees.

However, Eren goes too far when he recklessly decides to question Reiner’s thought process. The only reason Reiner would have revealed his secret to Eren is because he seriously thought there was a chance Eren would agree to come quietly. Frankly, this is an irrational, illogical idea and any person in their right mind would know that this wouldn’t work, but not Reiner. It’s kind of innocent or even idealistic, that Reiner could possibly think that Eren would agree to his proposal, but also worryingly delusional. So when Eren points this fact out, Reiner is genuinely shocked, dismayed, and maybe even hurt.

Gradually, this episode has broken down every conception we’ve had of Reiner as a person. We believed Reiner was physically strong, so we were shown his emotional weakness. We believed Reiner was loyal, so we were shown his betrayal. And now, though we believed Reiner was stable, now we’re shown his instability. He’s not cool and collected at all, he’s irrational and volatile. Visually, this episode has been tense and unsettling throughout, with stormy skies and violently waving flags, symbolising the constantly shifting situation at hand and Reiner’s unstable psyche. So when the flag pole suddenly snaps, we know that Reiner has made a decision. There is no going back now.

Suddenly, Reiner declares that he’s been here too long for his own good and he becomes deeply ashamed his naivety. Though he is committed to his cause, some part of him, I think, does genuinely care about everyone he’s fought with. In his irrational state, offering Eren an opportunity to come quietly and prevent the eradication of humanity seemed like a valid way to reconcile this his greater plan with his new ties. However, realising the impossibility of any compromise, he now feels his only choice is to commit to his duty as a warrior and see their plan through to the end, no matter the consequences.

Throughout the show, Reiner has described himself as both a soldier and warrior, and the difference between these terms is crucial to the choice Reiner makes. The term ‘soldier’ recalls ideas of strength, bravery, loyalty and stability; essentially, our past conception of Reiner. Crucially, unlike a warrior, to be a soldier one must be part of an army. Thus, the term ‘soldier’ also brings up associations of conformity, disciple and camaraderie. In contrast to this, the concept of a warrior exists independent of a larger group and thus symbolises individuality, agency and power. A soldier fights in an army for a community but a warrior fights for himself. Thus, in his decision to be a warrior, Reiner forsakes his community, deciding to fight as an individual for his own enigmatic desires.

This pace has been slowly quickening, building up tension, and now it all comes to a head as Reiner and Bertholdt put their plan into motion, transforming into their titan forms. Until this moment, I don’t think Eren truly believed or, at the very least, understood the implications of what Reiner revealed to him. He’s actually sobbing at what he is forced to face in Reiner. Treasured memories flash through his mind, of training with Reiner and Bertholdt, confiding in them and trusting them. Eren truly loved both of them.

But now, as Eren watches the world turn to chaos around him, Reiner’s status as titan and traitor finally sinks in and eradicates his conception of him as friend and comrade. But if they’re not his friends, then what are they? They are monsters, they are irredeemable traitors and they need to be destroyed.

10 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 4 years

Text

The Best Geek TV Deep Dives on YouTube

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

From the heyday of Television Without Pity to niche podcasts that cover every small screen angle you can think of, TV show deep dives have always thrived online, and popular platforms like YouTube and Vimeo provide opportunities for talented creators to add a visual angle that can often make a well-edited analysis of your favorite series even more compelling.

YouTube is positively teeming with potential rabbit holes for TV obsessives to fall down. Sometimes at 3 a.m. Sometimes after a few beers. Sometimes when you should be working (couldn’t be us) but whether you’re drawn in by a near-obligatory shocked reaction thumbnail or you accidentally stumble across an interesting take on something you’re passionate about, there’s usually a rabbit hole waiting that feels like it could have been made just for you.

With any luck, falling down one of those rabbit holes ends with you landing far away from the world of destructive opinions, of which there are many, and not just on YouTube. Most of us have probably seen a clip floating around of someone spouting the most harmful, misinformed nonsense at one time or another, and asked ourselves whether giving that person a platform was really the best idea.

Well, this isn’t that. Instead, we’ve pulled together some weighty YouTube-accessible examples of what happens when someone loves a TV series or franchise so much, they can’t stop talking about it – even decades later. Most of these deep dives are a labor of love, which is not to say that they always have a happy ending.

The Retrospective

Ian Martin, who runs the YouTube channel Passion of the Nerd, says his journey began rather accidentally in his early 30s when he found himself feeling a little lost in life. He admits he tried a variety of ways to rid himself of the sensation, including “too much alcohol,” but after deciding on a career change and fruitlessly looking for ways into the voiceover industry, he decided the best course of action was to go ahead and just …make stuff. After all, this course of action didn’t require anyone else to give him a break, and made him the master of his own destiny.

“I sat down and wrote a script about a show I’d become consumed by and edited it into a video called Why You Should Watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” he wrote. “In that video, I mentioned that Buffy’s first season was a little rough and, for people who just wanted to get into the show, I would create a short little episode guide just to get them through the first season.”

Six years later, Martin is still at it, and his audience has grown into a supportive community that includes over sixty thousand subscribers, propped up by funding from Patreon. Not only is he still covering Joss Whedon’s first series in depth, episode-by-episode, he’s now delving into spin-off show Angel and Firefly.

Martin’s videos don’t pore over every aspect of these shows, and rarely does an instalment hit the 30-minute mark. Rather, they tend to examine the philosophy behind their themes, citing absurdist and existentialist influences. The host himself doesn’t push these ideas on his audience, but if you don’t end up buying a copy of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea by the time you get to the end of Season 3, it may be that you’ve missed out on a pretty essential element of Buffy’s enduring appeal.

“It took me a long time to figure out what Passion of the Nerd was but I started to find its shape through the journey it was taking ME on,” he explained. “On any average day it’s a chance to make someone laugh over our shared interests. But my favorite experience of art is the one in which we find ourselves. That movie, piece of music, performance, or show that makes us feel like its creator opened up our heart to take a picture of its inner depths. And I love talking about why media MATTERS and finding those moments in popular culture. Sometimes I get to distil those moments for other people and when I do, I hope it does for them what the channel has done for me.”

Martin’s coverage of the very first episode of Buffy lies below. If you continue watching his series of videos after that, it’s unlikely you’ll want that time back. They’re incredibly thoughtful and, frankly, an absolute joy.

The Deconstruction

Ah, Twin Peaks. The show that changed television forever, and one that has been hard to forget ever since. You’ve not been able to throw a golden shovel without hitting a Twin Peaks deep dive online in the last three decades, but occasionally one arrives and threatens to pull apart the backbone of its dreamscape for good.

Twin Perfect’s Rosseter turned in a Twin Peaks deep dive last October with a running time not for the faint of heart. His deconstruction of David Lynch’s endlessly puzzling mystery, supported by myriad quotes from its beloved co-creator, is over four-and-a-half hours long, but its length certainly hasn’t put off curious viewers – over a million people have already chosen to hear what Rosseter has to say about the real meaning behind Twin Peaks.

“Garmonbozia, the Black and White Lodges, Mike, Bob and the Little Man, Judy, Audrey and Charlie, Season 3’s ending… The mystery of Twin Peaks has survived for nearly 30 years… until now,” the video promises, which is a tease that even casual fans of the series can’t possibly resist. Their mileage may vary with the host’s loud impression of Lynch throughout the video, however, even as he produces what feels like a fairly accurate interpretation of Twin Peaks’ initial intentions, its ongoing message in the prequel film Fire Walk with Me, and a gut-punching look at 2017’s The Return.

Rosseter starts out by warning his audience that if they haven’t consumed all three Twin Peaks seasons and the film, they should consider stepping back until they have, which stands to reason: he’s about to spoil most of their various twists and turns. But he then goes on to say that die-hard Twin Peaks junkies should also reconsider watching the video, because after they’ve heard him out, they might never be able to look at Twin Peaks the same way again.

For many, the temptation to potentially peek behind the red curtain has been too great to ignore, and the comment section is filled with people who sat through the whole thing, having felt truly changed by the experience.

“David Lynch didn’t even know what this show was about until he saw this video,” someone joked, while another added more solemnly “I just feel regret. I appreciate the show on a whole other level but the haunting magic that it had for me is gone.”

One viewer thought that Rosseter’s comprehensive offering “may legitimately and unironically be one of the most intelligent and well-constructed videos ever put on YouTube,” but others hit the nail on the head when they realised that unwrapping Twin Peaks’ clues over the years had only led to one significant discovery: “we were controlling Twin Peaks the entire time.”

So, what’s at the heart of Rosseter’s theory? You may want to find out for yourself, and he certainly makes an incredibly detailed case for it. In this event, a brief explanation in the next paragraph will be a SPOILER.

While it’s common knowledge that David Lynch didn’t want to reveal who was responsible for killing Twin Peaks’ central victim, Laura Palmer, and that he was forced by TV bigwigs to wrap up the storyline and the investigation into her murder during Season 2 in late 1990, Rosseter posits that the reason we were never supposed to uncover the mystery of who ended her life and get closure on her death is because Lynch fundamentally believes that consumable TV violence is rotting our brains, and that’s why he created the series in the first place.

Still intrigued? Take a look…

The Discussion

Two-time Shorty Award winner Kristen Maldonado launched her YouTube channel in 2014 as a place where pop culture meets community, and she has the kind of drive, ambition and fast turnaround skills that make other creators look like they’re napping on the job, frankly.

While working as a social media manager for MTV, she’s used her YouTube platform to support women, diversity, and LGBTQ+ representation, discussing everything from the acknowledgement of Kat’s identity on The Bold Type, to the highs and lows of TV’s YA-skewed failures, emphasising the importance of why representation matters “on screen, behind the scenes, and critically.”

Along the way, she’s become a notable queen of deep dives, and not just where TV or movies are concerned – at one point she was even documenting her own musical journey on Spotify, where she was keen to bring attention to emerging artists. Discussing TV still feels like Maldonado’s reigning passion, though, and she usually explores her favorite shows in bite-sized segments that add up to a comprehensive look at their subjects.

One show she’s been extremely passionate about is the Charmed reboot, which she was beyond excited to see come to fruition on The CW. The fantasy drama series originally ran for eight seasons between 1998 and 2006, and CBS had tried and failed to reboot it before, but this time The CW intended to get the job done, bringing the story of magic and sisterhood back to TV and hoping to entice both fans of the old series and a new, younger audience.

The reboot was initially touted across industry trades as a project that would star three Latinx actresses, and that casting choice meant a lot to Maldonado. When news later emerged that only one of the new Charmed sisters would be played by a Latina actress, she posted a video addressing her feelings of confusion about how the show was originally announced, her disappointment that the roles wouldn’t be filled by three Latinx performers, and why series creators need to start using valuable representation opportunities properly.

Maldonado has covered the Charmed reboot comprehensively since it began in 2018, and this year has moved into livestreaming her reviews, switching from shorter videos to longer discussions about the episodes. If you’re a fan of Charmed, or any of the other series she covers (and there are quite a few) you might well find her channel to be an insightful addition to your subscription list.

The Takedown

Chances are, a TV show has pissed you off or upset you before. That Game of Thrones ending? Probably. Bobby Ewing stepping out of the shower? Sure. Quantum Leap? We’re not over it. Only a few of us take the time to make a video detailing just how upset we are about a show and upload it to YouTube, though.

Mike Stoklasa is likely to be a pretty familiar face to some of the Very Online movie and TV addicts reading these words. He’s the founder of production company RedLetterMedia, through which he’s been creating content and offering his desert-dry opinion on various facets of pop culture for well over a decade.

On YouTube, Stoklasa is regularly accompanied by cohorts Jay Bauman and Rich Evans as they take a hard look at some of their favorite films from the past, some of the worst straight-to-video movies of all time, and some of the bigger releases, too. He also voices a character called Mr. Plinkett, and when he does, viewers know that they’re about to peer screaming into the void, because ‘Mr. Plinkett’ does not hold back, especially when it comes to Star Wars or Star Trek.

Stoklasa is one of the most vocal Star Trek fans alive, and is known to consistently derail otherwise unconnected discussions with his Trek references, often explaining how Star Trek may have influenced the subject’s storytelling, and how it might have been – or should have been – a positive lesson from TV past.

To say that he’s not a fan of Star Trek’s fairly recent resurgence under the eye of executive producer Alex Kurtzman is probably an understatement. He covered CBS All-Access’ Star Trek: Discovery, a series that has, for the most part, chosen to abandon Trek’s previous lean towards standalone stories and episodes in favor of season-long arcs, and he seemed interested but trepidatious ahead of Star Trek: Picard’s arrival on the streaming service. But after the show had run its course, he uploaded a 94-minute takedown called ‘Mr. Plinkett’s Star Trek Picard Review’.

The broader world of YouTube takedowns is, objectively, a cesspool – misogyny, racism and homophobia have often run rampant – but Stoklasa has been in the business of keeping more of a constructive balance going for a long time, so when ‘Mr Plinkett’s’ review of Picard appeared online towards the end of May, anyone with even a little backstory on his recent problems with Trek’s TV universe suspected that the fresh adventures of the aging ex-Enterprise captain had finally pushed him over the edge …but they weren’t quite prepared for the ‘Dear John’ letter that ultimately arrived.

Whether you enjoyed Picard or not, Stoklasa makes some constructive points in his video review, and his breakup with the current Star Trek TV world is one for the ages.

The Art of More

If it’s the visual element of a TV show deep dive you’re into, YouTube has plenty to offer.

Art meets skill as Skip Intro takes a fascinating look at the editing behind David E. Kelley’s Big Little Lies, Ladyknightthebrave spends the best part of an hour pondering how Fleabag’s gimmick of breaking the fourth wall serves the show’s characters and story, and balancing ‘point of view’ vs ‘the big picture’ becomes the focus of Lost Thoughts’ It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Island.

Here, Thomas Flight explores how HBO’s award-guzzling Chernobyl became a masterclass in perspective…

We hope you found something worth your time in this piece, and writing it up wasn’t really an excuse to discover more of them, but it also wasn’t NOT an excuse to discover more of them. So, if you’ve found any notable examples to keep us busy, please direct our attention to them in the comments, thank you.

The post The Best Geek TV Deep Dives on YouTube appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3eddPoI

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

0 notes