Bits and pieces of pondering
1. Not only is Ellen Page not running away from sci-fi now that she's famous (she's going to be in Inception this summer! I will probably be the only girl in the theater there for her and not for Dicaprio) but she is going to be playing a lesbian in a based-on-a-true-story movie Freeheld. Be still, my heart.
2. Does anyone know if Kathryn Erbe has any projects in motion? I have her on Google Alert, but only for news articles, so basically it's all about that case against her stalker, and then occasional mentions of the show from reporters who don't realize she isn't on it anymore. I know this makes me a horrible person, but I really hope she didn't quit acting to spend more time with her family.
3. So I realize it's been awhile since the Glee episode when Sue Sylvester went off about labels to Kurt, telling him how useless they were and that he couldn't possibly know what he was when he had zero experience with either gender. This has been bothering me for awhile, and I think I've finally narrowed down why:
A) It is completely out of character for Sue. From the very first episode, she has been shown to believe, strongly, that labels (and their attendant castes) are necessary in order to give teenagers the structure to function. One of the reasons she hates Glee Club so much is that it introduces as element of change into the otherwise stable high school hierarchy. She doesn't even like it when people switch labels, much less when they eschew all labels and exist in a state of free-floating exploration. Come on, one of her favorite put-downs for the Gleeks is that they're "bicurious."
B) Labels are not intrinsically evil. Labels are a tool. You can use them to lead an organized and clearly-focused life. You can over-use them and stereotype, oppress, and ignore those whose labels you dislike. Yes, our society probably puts too much emphasis on labels. Maybe this emphasis has led Kurt to label himself as gay, because he fits the stereotype, when the reality is much more complicated. But this is the thing--this is a label Kurt chose, the one that he feels best fits him and his feelings. Maybe in a few years it's one he'll look back on and readjust it, but for now, it gives him a place where he knows where to stand, a rock he can cling to as he builds his identity in the hurricane of adolescence. For now, to question its validity, to question his right to make such a judgment about himself, is harmful and wrong. Especially since none of the straight students pining after each other have ever been told by an adult to not worry about their feelings, because they have little to no experience with the other gender, and liking such-and-such doesn't necessarily mean they're straight.
C) I know this was said by Sue, who says hilariously wrong and evil things all the time. But the only part that seemed to be treated like a joke was the end line, when she said that only she got to decide what Kurt was, not anybody else. The rest of it about "why are you so worried about labels/you being gay is not based on any real evidence" was treated like it was supposed to be taken seriously.
4. More and more I am convinced that the Doctor is a metaphorical Jesus. The (repeated) savior of the human race, who dies for our sins and is resurrected; a peaceful man who shares his cheerful company with the humblest/lowliest people, but who is also alien and unknowable in awe-inspiring and almost frightening ways. Normally me making an observation like this would herald me not really being able to enjoy the source material anymore; the hammering over the head with Christian metaphors has rendered The Chronicles of Narnia much less enjoyable to me, and jeez, Dean Koontz, I know that you had a near-death experience convincing you there is an afterlife BUT COULD YOU STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE ME EVERY FIVE PAGES? (I was about to mention Brian Jacques' Redwall as well, but then I realized my disenchantment with that series had less to do with the overt Jesus/Martin the Warrior parallels, and more to do with questions like how an abbey can be built to scale for mice and badgers, or whether or not humans exist and if not who built the barn to human scale, and the racialization of various animal species.) But there are two things about Doctor Who that make this not the case:
A) It's clear it's not being done on purpose with some sort of agenda. It's just one possible interpretation, and a fun one (to me) at that. Moffat and Davies and everybody aren't trying to convert me to Christianity, but the cultural consciousness we're all a part of has endowed their main character with certain characteristics.
B) If the Doctor is Jesus, he's Jesus in a way that reminds me of the things I really enjoyed about religion: the stories. The compelling, complex characters--Solomon and Esther and Ruth were always my favorites; the fantastic, dramatic settings (burning bushes, seas being parted); the mysteries and emotions and clashes and beautiful language. Back when I was little and thought that the Bible stories were the entirety of the Bible, I was way more into church than anyone else in my family. Honestly, if Jesus had been presented more like Doctor Who, I might've stayed a Christian longer.
5. Yes, it has been several months since I posted the first of my "Reading the Romance" discussions that I was threatening to spam your flists with. I will get back to that as soon as my own copy of the book comes in the mail. I also have two new books by Henry Jenkins, who is made of so much win it is ridiculous, so expect a lot of fangirling over him and his writing and how he is respectful towards fandom and proud to be a member, as well as a great defender of popular culture. Also a bit of respectful disagreement now and then, but mostly fangirling.
2. Does anyone know if Kathryn Erbe has any projects in motion? I have her on Google Alert, but only for news articles, so basically it's all about that case against her stalker, and then occasional mentions of the show from reporters who don't realize she isn't on it anymore. I know this makes me a horrible person, but I really hope she didn't quit acting to spend more time with her family.
3. So I realize it's been awhile since the Glee episode when Sue Sylvester went off about labels to Kurt, telling him how useless they were and that he couldn't possibly know what he was when he had zero experience with either gender. This has been bothering me for awhile, and I think I've finally narrowed down why:
A) It is completely out of character for Sue. From the very first episode, she has been shown to believe, strongly, that labels (and their attendant castes) are necessary in order to give teenagers the structure to function. One of the reasons she hates Glee Club so much is that it introduces as element of change into the otherwise stable high school hierarchy. She doesn't even like it when people switch labels, much less when they eschew all labels and exist in a state of free-floating exploration. Come on, one of her favorite put-downs for the Gleeks is that they're "bicurious."
B) Labels are not intrinsically evil. Labels are a tool. You can use them to lead an organized and clearly-focused life. You can over-use them and stereotype, oppress, and ignore those whose labels you dislike. Yes, our society probably puts too much emphasis on labels. Maybe this emphasis has led Kurt to label himself as gay, because he fits the stereotype, when the reality is much more complicated. But this is the thing--this is a label Kurt chose, the one that he feels best fits him and his feelings. Maybe in a few years it's one he'll look back on and readjust it, but for now, it gives him a place where he knows where to stand, a rock he can cling to as he builds his identity in the hurricane of adolescence. For now, to question its validity, to question his right to make such a judgment about himself, is harmful and wrong. Especially since none of the straight students pining after each other have ever been told by an adult to not worry about their feelings, because they have little to no experience with the other gender, and liking such-and-such doesn't necessarily mean they're straight.
C) I know this was said by Sue, who says hilariously wrong and evil things all the time. But the only part that seemed to be treated like a joke was the end line, when she said that only she got to decide what Kurt was, not anybody else. The rest of it about "why are you so worried about labels/you being gay is not based on any real evidence" was treated like it was supposed to be taken seriously.
4. More and more I am convinced that the Doctor is a metaphorical Jesus. The (repeated) savior of the human race, who dies for our sins and is resurrected; a peaceful man who shares his cheerful company with the humblest/lowliest people, but who is also alien and unknowable in awe-inspiring and almost frightening ways. Normally me making an observation like this would herald me not really being able to enjoy the source material anymore; the hammering over the head with Christian metaphors has rendered The Chronicles of Narnia much less enjoyable to me, and jeez, Dean Koontz, I know that you had a near-death experience convincing you there is an afterlife BUT COULD YOU STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE ME EVERY FIVE PAGES? (I was about to mention Brian Jacques' Redwall as well, but then I realized my disenchantment with that series had less to do with the overt Jesus/Martin the Warrior parallels, and more to do with questions like how an abbey can be built to scale for mice and badgers, or whether or not humans exist and if not who built the barn to human scale, and the racialization of various animal species.) But there are two things about Doctor Who that make this not the case:
A) It's clear it's not being done on purpose with some sort of agenda. It's just one possible interpretation, and a fun one (to me) at that. Moffat and Davies and everybody aren't trying to convert me to Christianity, but the cultural consciousness we're all a part of has endowed their main character with certain characteristics.
B) If the Doctor is Jesus, he's Jesus in a way that reminds me of the things I really enjoyed about religion: the stories. The compelling, complex characters--Solomon and Esther and Ruth were always my favorites; the fantastic, dramatic settings (burning bushes, seas being parted); the mysteries and emotions and clashes and beautiful language. Back when I was little and thought that the Bible stories were the entirety of the Bible, I was way more into church than anyone else in my family. Honestly, if Jesus had been presented more like Doctor Who, I might've stayed a Christian longer.
5. Yes, it has been several months since I posted the first of my "Reading the Romance" discussions that I was threatening to spam your flists with. I will get back to that as soon as my own copy of the book comes in the mail. I also have two new books by Henry Jenkins, who is made of so much win it is ridiculous, so expect a lot of fangirling over him and his writing and how he is respectful towards fandom and proud to be a member, as well as a great defender of popular culture. Also a bit of respectful disagreement now and then, but mostly fangirling.