Amy Ponds of the 99% (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
allchildren) wrote2011-01-19 07:21 am
allchildren) wrote2011-01-19 07:21 am
Entry tags:
those anarcho-nerds are mysterious
I recently read Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed, and now I am disappointed in all other things because it is becoming clear to me that over the last two or three years I've developed an affliction with regards to fiction that is gradually rendering me a gibbering mass of contrariness.
I believe Homer Simpson best summed my issue up with his timeless epigram, "Beer: the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems." Only in my case we will swap out beer (which causes me no problems other than in its sad dearth) for "rich people."
I guess it's not just rich people, but privileged characters in general. And I am aware that by saying so I point out my own privilege in having been able to go with the privileged-fictional-people flow for so long, and for reaching this particular breaking point out of narrative considerations rather than social justice ones. I disclaim here and now that I have been consistently humbled by the work of social justice-minded fans who've woken me up to a fucking ton of real social injustice mirrored and reinforced by media and that in my srs life goals addressing those issues is my media-related priority number one. But I also want to be clear that right now I'm not talking about social justice and privilege irl (not that, as a middle class white USian I would necessarily be the most insightful speaker on the subject) -- I'm talking about how fictional narratives are framed and whose viewpoints are backed up by the narrative.
I just. I was just watching North & South (the BBC one), right, and I'm only halfway through so I am reserving judgment but so far I'm watching this going "..." Lower-upper (?) class gentlewoman's family is forced to move to an industrial town where there are POOR PEOPLE and FACTORIES and COMPETITIVE TRADE and she calls it hell. Oh, if only I could move back to the country and not know that business operates! She makes friends with a working family and is sad as she dispenses charity. She sides with striking workers who of course riot and of course listen to her straightaway when she defends their boss (WHO PUNCHES HIS EMPLOYEES WHEN FIRING THEM) except then the guy with the six starving children hits her in the head with a rock! And I can't help but feel, I don't know if it's just that I'm in a terrible mood or that I saw something very similar on the far superior Downton Abbey when I marathoned it last week or WHAT, but what I think is supposed to be "moral complexity in a shitty situation for all involved" is just coming across to me as this politically fucked up condescending cop-out where the only person blameless in this situation is the girl highest on the social ladder, whose story this is, whose infinite compassion allows her to help shoulder the burden of poverty even though she obviously has no complicity in the system. And LIKE I SAY I haven't seen it all so maybe the story will not end up being about how sad it is to watch other people be poor and how beating up your workers kinda sucks but hey Logan Echolls something something now make out!, but that's not even the point.
The point is, I see this everywhere! In all different ways, but always reaffirming the privilege and moral strength of the protagonist and almost always allowing the status quo to live blamelessly on. Yesterday Rhea posted about The Hunger Games pulling punches and consistently allowing Katniss to avoid making really hard decisions, and: yeah. She's got to kill SOMEONE? Well, don't feel too bad, they're just mega-blonde "Careers" who are totally into being forced into a televised battle to the death. (From the vault: Dude don't you love it when Our Hero is held captive and for some reason everybody else around him is totally IN THE TANK for their captor even though they are also slaves and are forced to fight in the arena and get no food or sleep? It takes a special kind of sensitive soul to be offended by being a slave, I guess. That's how you identify a hero.)
This weekend I saw The Green Hornet and, you know, I thought it was going to be really "here is Seth Rogen, also here is this not white dude but DID YOU SEE SETH ROGEN" but early on it begins to be "Kato is great at everything, why isn't this movie called The Kato is Great At Everything Movie? fucking Seth Rogen! and I say this as one of very few media-obsessed feminists who will profess to actively liking Seth Rogen" and then in an amazing twist ACTUALLY BECOMES TEXTUALLY ABOUT HOW KATO IS GREAT AT EVERYTHING AND SHOULD HAVE HIS OWN MOVIE OR AT LEAST A SUPERHERO NAME. So I was pretty pleased with this level of textual awareness and trickery, and unrelatedly also how Seth Rogen does not even a little get the girl, but even with this joy visited upon me I couldn't help but be bummed because as far as it went in subverting the presupposed narrative privilege, it could have gone further. This is how contrary I am. Get close and I'm just thinking "no, closer." Because I've just lost all my reasonableness about this shit.
It's just, every chosen one and every special destiny and how every story that starts out being about ordinary people thrown into extraordinary circumstances somehow always ends up pulling a secret connection out of its ass so that instead of our hero just being a hero because they're rad they've been under the watchful eye of the villain ALL THEIR LIVES!!1 And every monarchy in every fucking fantasy story, even when it's fucking Merlin and King Giles literally just executes people for the fun of it and some evil bitch with magic hates him which automatically makes him righter. And so, so much sci-fi where John "Ugly American Cultural Imperialist Seriously If You Tell Me How Great Farscape Is Right Now I Will Cut You" is the hero and in Starfleet where every captain and 98% of crewmembers we see are human and we've never seen a single good Romulan EVER and every serious critic of the Federation must eventually either die or capitulate.
I just... I don't know. I dream of narrative revolution. I dream of costume dramas that remember that POC had POVs before 1970, of engagement with class that doesn't SOMEHOW end up being pretty much about the lives of rich people, of actual fucking free will and narratives aren't fucking about the continuity of power and the unique specialness of heroes when the unique specialness inherent to being a person at all should really probably be plenty. I dream of villains who are just allowed to HAVE GOOD POINTS instead of always going off the rapey and/or mustache-twirling end. What about a collective revolution, what about breaking the format, what about not using a format at all?
I've lost my ability to interrogate text from the proper perspective anymore. Baby, I'm a narrative anarchist :(
ironic icon choice is ironic (oh eleven, ilu but don't think i wouldn't put you in the pandorica myself, i mean really)
I believe Homer Simpson best summed my issue up with his timeless epigram, "Beer: the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems." Only in my case we will swap out beer (which causes me no problems other than in its sad dearth) for "rich people."
I guess it's not just rich people, but privileged characters in general. And I am aware that by saying so I point out my own privilege in having been able to go with the privileged-fictional-people flow for so long, and for reaching this particular breaking point out of narrative considerations rather than social justice ones. I disclaim here and now that I have been consistently humbled by the work of social justice-minded fans who've woken me up to a fucking ton of real social injustice mirrored and reinforced by media and that in my srs life goals addressing those issues is my media-related priority number one. But I also want to be clear that right now I'm not talking about social justice and privilege irl (not that, as a middle class white USian I would necessarily be the most insightful speaker on the subject) -- I'm talking about how fictional narratives are framed and whose viewpoints are backed up by the narrative.
I just. I was just watching North & South (the BBC one), right, and I'm only halfway through so I am reserving judgment but so far I'm watching this going "..." Lower-upper (?) class gentlewoman's family is forced to move to an industrial town where there are POOR PEOPLE and FACTORIES and COMPETITIVE TRADE and she calls it hell. Oh, if only I could move back to the country and not know that business operates! She makes friends with a working family and is sad as she dispenses charity. She sides with striking workers who of course riot and of course listen to her straightaway when she defends their boss (WHO PUNCHES HIS EMPLOYEES WHEN FIRING THEM) except then the guy with the six starving children hits her in the head with a rock! And I can't help but feel, I don't know if it's just that I'm in a terrible mood or that I saw something very similar on the far superior Downton Abbey when I marathoned it last week or WHAT, but what I think is supposed to be "moral complexity in a shitty situation for all involved" is just coming across to me as this politically fucked up condescending cop-out where the only person blameless in this situation is the girl highest on the social ladder, whose story this is, whose infinite compassion allows her to help shoulder the burden of poverty even though she obviously has no complicity in the system. And LIKE I SAY I haven't seen it all so maybe the story will not end up being about how sad it is to watch other people be poor and how beating up your workers kinda sucks but hey Logan Echolls something something now make out!, but that's not even the point.
The point is, I see this everywhere! In all different ways, but always reaffirming the privilege and moral strength of the protagonist and almost always allowing the status quo to live blamelessly on. Yesterday Rhea posted about The Hunger Games pulling punches and consistently allowing Katniss to avoid making really hard decisions, and: yeah. She's got to kill SOMEONE? Well, don't feel too bad, they're just mega-blonde "Careers" who are totally into being forced into a televised battle to the death. (From the vault: Dude don't you love it when Our Hero is held captive and for some reason everybody else around him is totally IN THE TANK for their captor even though they are also slaves and are forced to fight in the arena and get no food or sleep? It takes a special kind of sensitive soul to be offended by being a slave, I guess. That's how you identify a hero.)
This weekend I saw The Green Hornet and, you know, I thought it was going to be really "here is Seth Rogen, also here is this not white dude but DID YOU SEE SETH ROGEN" but early on it begins to be "Kato is great at everything, why isn't this movie called The Kato is Great At Everything Movie? fucking Seth Rogen! and I say this as one of very few media-obsessed feminists who will profess to actively liking Seth Rogen" and then in an amazing twist ACTUALLY BECOMES TEXTUALLY ABOUT HOW KATO IS GREAT AT EVERYTHING AND SHOULD HAVE HIS OWN MOVIE OR AT LEAST A SUPERHERO NAME. So I was pretty pleased with this level of textual awareness and trickery, and unrelatedly also how Seth Rogen does not even a little get the girl, but even with this joy visited upon me I couldn't help but be bummed because as far as it went in subverting the presupposed narrative privilege, it could have gone further. This is how contrary I am. Get close and I'm just thinking "no, closer." Because I've just lost all my reasonableness about this shit.
It's just, every chosen one and every special destiny and how every story that starts out being about ordinary people thrown into extraordinary circumstances somehow always ends up pulling a secret connection out of its ass so that instead of our hero just being a hero because they're rad they've been under the watchful eye of the villain ALL THEIR LIVES!!1 And every monarchy in every fucking fantasy story, even when it's fucking Merlin and King Giles literally just executes people for the fun of it and some evil bitch with magic hates him which automatically makes him righter. And so, so much sci-fi where John "Ugly American Cultural Imperialist Seriously If You Tell Me How Great Farscape Is Right Now I Will Cut You" is the hero and in Starfleet where every captain and 98% of crewmembers we see are human and we've never seen a single good Romulan EVER and every serious critic of the Federation must eventually either die or capitulate.
I just... I don't know. I dream of narrative revolution. I dream of costume dramas that remember that POC had POVs before 1970, of engagement with class that doesn't SOMEHOW end up being pretty much about the lives of rich people, of actual fucking free will and narratives aren't fucking about the continuity of power and the unique specialness of heroes when the unique specialness inherent to being a person at all should really probably be plenty. I dream of villains who are just allowed to HAVE GOOD POINTS instead of always going off the rapey and/or mustache-twirling end. What about a collective revolution, what about breaking the format, what about not using a format at all?
I've lost my ability to interrogate text from the proper perspective anymore. Baby, I'm a narrative anarchist :(
ironic icon choice is ironic (oh eleven, ilu but don't think i wouldn't put you in the pandorica myself, i mean really)
no subject
YYYY. One of the things I like about The Wire is that it does some of this, and it does it really well (well, I'm only just starting S2, but S1 was great). It definitely breaks with the formula, and it unfolds slowly and without a neat ending to every episode. More like reading a book than watching a procedural*. It's not about any one heroic person and their journey; rather, it uses the "giving a fuck when it's not their turn to give fuck" (to paraphrase) trope, which allows both the 'good' guys (cops) and 'bad' guys (drug dealers) to have character motivations beyond altruism or special Chosen One prophecies. It's really about institutional ~isms (mostly class and race, I think, though it also has two canonically queer characters) and politics (within organizations, like a drug operation and the Baltimore PD). I find it fascinating (and I think the only way it works is because it's very specific to a time and place (Baltimore, early 2000s, post 9/11; I don't think it would work if it tried to be in a generic location or didn't interact with the setting - and people living there - in a meaningful way).
Anyway, I think this essay on that trope explains it better.
*Homicide: Life on the Street, sort of a precursor to The Wire, is a little more conventional, but I always forget it was an NBC/network program because it breaks with formula so much (at least the first 5 seasons; the last two aren't so great); and I think it was the first time I ever saw a character directly address racism (and intersectionality with (white) feminism) and be so right about it (there was no hipster joking or backpeddling from the narrative). AND it was not the entirety of his character or characterization: He's Frank Pembleton, Murder Police and Brilliant in the (Interrogation) Box, not Frank Pembleton, Token Angry Black Man. He is so very awesome in many, many ways. As for the rest of the show, I like that it's not about chasing the bad guy or finding some obscure clue to lead them to a murderer; it's about the cops and their interactions with one another.
...Er, apologies for the ramble, and if you already know all about these shows.
Homicide: Life on the Street
this is pembleton in my icon :D
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
And I like that with this trope you don't even have to like the character that much! (because I don't really like McNulty, but I don't mind watching him because the show isn't about him as a main character just because he's the white dude, and I don't get the impression that I'm supposed to like him or think he's right all the time either.)
(Come to think of it, H:LOTS does this with Tim Bayliss too, though I think perhaps he's not quite as much of an wretch as McNulty.)
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
And yeah, I think Bayliss and McNulty are pretty different in important ways, though they do both give a fuck when it's not their turn to give a fuck (sometimes).
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
Re: this is pembleton in my icon :D
no subject
no subject