Wherein 
solitary_summer will go out out for a walk first and look at comments later.
Fresh air & sunshine are good.Not making a habit of staying up in front of the computer until 3 am and crawling out of bed only at noon unless work forces me to would also be good.
But there's this thing about good intentions and roads to hell... *sigh *A couple of notes about that last TW post.
# What the post was not about, or only very tangentially since it's a much too complex subject, was the discussion about women writing slash. I'm not even sure about my own opinion there right now. On the one hand I understand how this could and can be seen as problematic and offensive. Cue the guilt. On the other hand I was one of the people who slashed book characters and TV characters long before I knew there was a word for it. Teenaged me feeling awkward and embarrassed to watch Maurice twice in the theatre in still very provincial 1980ies Vienna. Darkover novels. Long list of favourite authors who are gay. I'm still thinking about it. However, what is relevant in the discussion here is that the 'straight women writing gay porn' image is very much what is out there in mainstream media, even if it's simplifying a more complex reality, and that clearly a lot of gay men do find that problematic.
# I'm not saying that no one is allowed to discuss CoE and homophobia. What I do wish people would stop doing is assuming that in all the years he wrote for TV as a gay man RTD had managed to somehow remain completely oblivious of the dead gay character trope and all it entails, and wasn't perfectly aware of what he was doing killing Ianto. I think any discussion and critique should at least give him the credit of having made a deliberate decision to tell the story like that, ignoring the stereotypes or writing around them, instead of making armchair psychology assumptions about him being tripped up by his subconsciousness.
Which, again, obviously doesn't mean there are no issues about race in DW, or that they cannot be discussed. Just pointing out that the man knows his tropes.
# Finally and on a more personal note, writing that post and replying to the comments made me realise how completely isolated and alone I felt in TW fandom after CoE, at least until I wrote that long Jack/Ianto meta post, and what a huge relief it was/is finally being able to talk about that without feeling guilty and defensive all the time.
*off to the shower*
solitary_summer will go out out for a walk first and look at comments later.Fresh air & sunshine are good.
But there's this thing about good intentions and roads to hell... *sigh *A couple of notes about that last TW post.
# What the post was not about, or only very tangentially since it's a much too complex subject, was the discussion about women writing slash. I'm not even sure about my own opinion there right now. On the one hand I understand how this could and can be seen as problematic and offensive. Cue the guilt. On the other hand I was one of the people who slashed book characters and TV characters long before I knew there was a word for it. Teenaged me feeling awkward and embarrassed to watch Maurice twice in the theatre in still very provincial 1980ies Vienna. Darkover novels. Long list of favourite authors who are gay. I'm still thinking about it. However, what is relevant in the discussion here is that the 'straight women writing gay porn' image is very much what is out there in mainstream media, even if it's simplifying a more complex reality, and that clearly a lot of gay men do find that problematic.
# I'm not saying that no one is allowed to discuss CoE and homophobia. What I do wish people would stop doing is assuming that in all the years he wrote for TV as a gay man RTD had managed to somehow remain completely oblivious of the dead gay character trope and all it entails, and wasn't perfectly aware of what he was doing killing Ianto. I think any discussion and critique should at least give him the credit of having made a deliberate decision to tell the story like that, ignoring the stereotypes or writing around them, instead of making armchair psychology assumptions about him being tripped up by his subconsciousness.
' Maybe Mickey could die? 'Nooo!' said Phil. But Mickey is the only one who seems killable, because he's not quite central, he's unlucky, he's the odd one out. It's inbuilt in Mickey's character. But then I get shivers, because it's always the black guy who cops it. Maybe that's politically correct of me, but political correctness can be political and correct.'
Which, again, obviously doesn't mean there are no issues about race in DW, or that they cannot be discussed. Just pointing out that the man knows his tropes.
# Finally and on a more personal note, writing that post and replying to the comments made me realise how completely isolated and alone I felt in TW fandom after CoE, at least until I wrote that long Jack/Ianto meta post, and what a huge relief it was/is finally being able to talk about that without feeling guilty and defensive all the time.
*off to the shower*
- Current Mood:
good - Current Music:Кино, В Наших Глазах
Profile
- solitary_summer
- solitary summer
Comments
But isn't the real question, why is it always the black guy who's not quite central, unlucky, the odd one out? Why is it built into the character of the black guy and not a white guy? The problem started before the question of who to kill arose. Writing the black guy as killable, then get the shivers when he's the one who has to die is a lot of things (unimaginative, for one), but it's hardly politically correct.
(ETA: No one died in the end.)
Edited at 2010-01-16 07:02 pm (UTC)
Actually, I'm not at all familiar with DW, but I've seen the same sort of thing in horror movies. The black guy doesn't get a girlfriend, and he's always killed.
I'm glad no one died in the end. *g*
I have to say I kind of disagree with this. For one thing we don't really know what thought, if any, RTD put into killing Ianto. It's all assumption on our end so I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone wanting to question his motivations if they see something questionable in how he chose to tell that story. That doesn't mean that their conclusions are right and personally I don't think they are, but experience has taught me that those who should know better don't always. After all these are the same people to whom it apparently didn't occur that a guy using a spray to break down the inhibitions of a woman who'd already told him no just so she'd have sex with him might be construed as rape by their audience or why it might be considered sexist to put their cyberwoman in sexy cyberwoman gear.
"But isn't the real question, why is it always the black guy who's not quite central, unlucky, the odd one out? Why is it built into the character of the black guy and not a white guy? The problem started before the question of who to kill arose. Writing the black guy as killable, then get the shivers when he's the one who has to die is a lot of things (unimaginative, for one), but it's hardly politically correct."
I'd also like to say, as a sidenote, I agree with this. What made Mickey any more inherently killable than any of the other main characters other than writer's whim? It's not as if he faced any more dangerous perils than the other main characters and in certain cases faced a lot less. It seems even more of a bizarre assumption on a show that seemed to go out of its way 'not' to kill its main characters no matter how improbable that outcome might be. So what made Mickey so special for singling out?
Obviously I don't know that either, but at a guess he might have been a bit more aware about writing a gay character/storyline, since that concerns him more personally.
What made Mickey any more inherently killable than any of the other main characters other than writer's whim?
I absolutely agree with what