idk, I think that fandom tends to conflate interpreting certain characters as indulging in apologia. Like, there is nothing wrong with using markers given by a show to create a coherent narrative for a character rather than being all "THIS PERSON IS BAD AND IF YOU TRY TO BRING UP THEIR HISTORY THEN YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST". For some reason people assume that a bad past/childhood etc. necessarily excuses all future actions of an individual, which, of course, is ridiculous. Understanding why someone does something is not the same as excusing why someone does something. You can understanding a victim of childhood abuse perpetuating a cycle of abuse, but that in no way implies that their abuse is any less condemnable. ONE DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER. And to pass value judgments on "types" of characters w/o paying attention to individual presentation/narrative is just as limited a viewpoint and apologizing for these types would be
( ... )
Hello! It's been long, I feel like I haven't LJ-ed in ages! Btw happy new year!!! (Poco, this goes for you too :P)
Like, for one thing sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, and for another, I get why so many people have been frustrated by apologia in the past that they're hyper-sensitive to the possibility of it.THIS I completely get. I remember reading a general post about rape culture on tumblr and the author had said that when people say the same kind of misogynistic stuff in real life that they do on tumblr, she's far more understanding about it because she knows the people and she knows where they're coming from, regardless of whether she believes they're right or wrong. And it's completely true for me too, because the yardstick of judging reality/internet is completely different. I won't judge or side-eye my own friends for buying into the same fallacies that people on tumblr do. Also, I think the anonymity guarantee is a huge help, because you can rage to an extent that you simply CAN'T IRL because of various
( ... )
Although in some cases it's ironic because if your example in the case of Klaus vis-a-vis Caroline is true then I don't really see what's "wrong" with saying you (the general you) sympathize with Klaus because you identify with his issues? IDK. Why would people think that the "He treats Caroline like she's ~infinite" reasoning is any better?
Hee, because acknowledging or identifying with Klaus's issues is "apologia" in fandom? It's 'oh obv you identify with the straight white entitled assholish abusive male disregarding all the abuse he perpetrates and you probably hate women too'. While saying he treats Caroline like she's "infinite" is about Caroline, we like Klaus because he understands Caroline's potential, our interest in Klaus is centered on Caroline, IT IS THE WOMAN AND HER SUBJECTIVITY AND POTENTIAL AND PEOPLE WHO RECOGNIZE IT WHOM WE SUPPORT, which is more "acceptable". Liking Logan should be about Veronica (not true for me at all, I loooooove Logan for himself as well), liking Damon should be about Elena. And like I said in
( ... )
I don't really see what's "wrong" with saying you (the general you) sympathize with Klaus because you identify with his issues? IDK.
Well, nothing is wrong with it. But it's hard? It's hard to experience those Klauslike feelings, harder to acknowledge them, harder than that to express them to people, and trickiest of all to defend (which one does generally have to do) the entitlement to express that identification. And by "one," I mean "I, even as someone who has plenty of ~~respectable feminist cred and a Social Justice (TM) accepted way to frame those issues, has ~Gotten Help for them IRL, and generally loves telling fandom where to shove it." That's a hell of a learning curve, just to be ~~allowed to participate in fandom conversations.
Though I guess we don't really know if this substituting of one reason for another is actually what is going on, soI think it's a fairly astute guess that it's happening sometimes? I think we can acknowledge this might be a factor without totally letting the romanticization of Klaus and his
( ... )
But rather the substitution of "Klaus can show Caroline the ~world" as "more acceptable." Like, it's the "this reaction is more acceptable" part that I really have trouble wrapping my head around? Though explained in terms of (ostensibly) centralizing the female character's POV, as Zoe says, it makes more sense... There are a few reasons, I think. Definitely part of it is Because Sexism (we're more socialized to express support for romantic relationships than other narratives) and part Because Feminism (centralizing the female character's POV), but another part of it is that there's a little more distancing at play? Because centralizing Caroline's POV takes away a little bit of that uncomfortable self-scrutiny that might come from looking too closely at Klaus himself, and centralizing the romantic relationship rather than the core formative problem also gives space to someone who wants distance from their own core formative problem
( ... )
OMG FITZ. Do you watch Scandal yet??? (See what I did there with the YET?)
the people who like certain characters while being fully aware of the issues they raise are constantly being told by the internet that they Are Not Feminists/Are Doing It Wrong/Are Upholding Systems Abusive To Women which makes them defensive by default and probably err on the side of over-explanations, which are then conflated to apologia.
Yeah, if we were trying to incentivize dishonesty, we could hardly do better.
Also, I think your likes/dislikes fundamentally alter the text you're reading, which is why I tend to believe that most people are honest in their assessment and evaluations because that IS how they see it? Like people who ship Klaus/Caroline genuinely believe that they do it because he recognizes her potential to not forever be Miss Mystic Falls or contained to the small-town life, while other people always constrain her. It leads to a selective reading, but it's consistent with their viewpoint, and I do believe that we ALL read extremely selectively, that nobody ever considers every single factor ever, but mostly have an interpretation and as long as the show doesn't do something that drastically alters it, they interpret all subsequent actions in light of that interpretation; Stefan/Caroline would be a prime example, not only for fandom-at-large, but for me, personally as well. This is different from death of the author I think, because there the text is paramount, while, in this case, interpretation is paramount, even to the
( ... )
Like Paul Dierden on Orphan Black or Fitz on Scandal.
YES BUT THEY ARE THE WORST OF THE WORST. Like with Fitz especially I am usually 400% attracted to that character type because he's POWERFUL and a POLITICIAN and a man, I guess, (lol @ me) BUT HE IS JUST SO REPULSIVE TO ME. SQUANDERING ALL HIS TIME RANKING WOMEN AND FEELING SORRY FOR HIMSELF AND NEVER TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. WHY THE EVER LOVING FUCK WOULD YOU? Like, he has the chance for a fascinating storyline and he squanders it on shit that's as trite and common as Damon Salvatore's plots. Ewww.
Anyway, on a more serious note.
This is very true. And I do understand that, to a degree?Sames! I found myself in the odd positioning of agreeing with both the content of this post and the content that it was arguing against. Like fandom is craaaaaaaaazy swamped with apologia, far more swamped with apologia than it is in condemnation? So. Yeah. Obvs. explaining why X Character Behaves This Way isn't necessarily the same as Justifying X Character's Heinous Behaviour, but so
( ... )
I'm not denying the existence of bullshit apologism, or how frustrating it can be. However, there's a tendency to treat that insistence on condemnation as if it is cost-free BECAUSE GREAT JUSTICE!!! and anyone that objects is just being stupid because they're, idk, crazy morally stunted stupid girls who just need to get over those hurt feelings and be yelled awake from all that ~false consciousness. I am arguing that the cost-benefit analysis of addressing specific apologia directly and with an above-board presumption of good faith is way better than that of "ugh, ~people are just so ~stupid when they're not pressed about the same large-but-nebulous pile of stuff as I am, GOD." The benefit to that second thing is basically "poster and readers get off on moral superiority," which tbh is not worth much to me, particularly since you can do that while also making some effort toward a worthwhile argument, as I know because I do it pretty much daily. Meanwhile, there are costs to gratuitous judginess, including though far from limited to
( ... )
I am arguing that the cost-benefit analysis of addressing specific apologia directly and with an above-board presumption of good faith is way better than that of "ugh, ~people are just so ~stupid when they're not pressed about the same large-but-nebulous pile of stuff as I am, GOD."
Oh yeah, I mean... That absolutely goes without saying. And of course a contextualised argument is always going to be a lot more valuable. I have never seen Supernatural (except Youtube clips of Castiel ~adjusting to the human world!) so that whole section went over my head. But as somebody who tends to stan horrible awfuls I sympathise with the frustration that comes from fellow fans indulging in apologia. Like, so many times on Tumblr I've seen somebody write a piece of analysis about a 'bad' character and explaining, perfectly rationally and consistently, how previous trauma/abuse/whatever has shaped said 'bad' character's actions, and often it's people I know and there is NO APOLOGIA THERE AT ALL. NONE. ZERO. And then of course people will reblog it
( ... )
Like, so many times on Tumblr I've seen somebody write a piece of analysis about a 'bad' character and explaining, perfectly rationally and consistently, how previous trauma/abuse/whatever has shaped said 'bad' character's actions, and often it's people I know and there is NO APOLOGIA THERE AT ALL. NONE. ZERO. And then of course people will reblog it and start to add tag spirals ect. and will be full of apologia. And I assumed that's what that post is getting at?
Yeah...I'm not that generous with the benefit of the doubt. It's just not that hard to say "people co-opt fair analysis and turn it into excuse-making."
Klaus is manifestly not held accountable for his actions by the majority of his fandom, but that doesn't stop him being *my* favourite. I know people who stan Damon as well, and like, Damon doesn't hold himself accountable for his actions, but Imo that doesn't even mean the text is in any way saying accountability is diminished on his part, and like, loads and loads of people stan Damon without ever engaging in apologia,
( ... )
That's the kind of unconscious internalization of Might Is Right that misdirects people before they even get to apologism, because they don't even see apologism as necessary.
Yeah, you're right. I see this on Tumblr all the time. Woe. :((
"Elijah is a racist misogynist piece of shit who elevates his White Special Snowflake Madonnas over black women whom he treats as subhuman!"
I am shocked and appalled. Brand new information, tbh!
;P
Well, it's patently obvious why.
IS IT?????
I think I would also find Fitz boring if I watched Scandal, but I actually think he's less inherently boring than Paul
Could not agree more. Paul is a snooze!fest. Fitz is a rage!fest. :D
You're very different TBH because you're like, "I love this character because he is a powerful white dude politician!" Which is awesome but most of fandom is not like that, heh.
Well TBH I think powerful white dude politicians have the best of this world? (Except those who elect to become clergymen, apparently.) Obviously that's not to say that there's something
( ... )
idk, I think that fandom tends to conflate interpreting certain characters as indulging in apologia. Like, there is nothing wrong with using markers given by a show to create a coherent narrative for a character rather than being all "THIS PERSON IS BAD AND IF YOU TRY TO BRING UP THEIR HISTORY THEN YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST". For some reason people assume that a bad past/childhood etc. necessarily excuses all future actions of an individual, which, of course, is ridiculous. Understanding why someone does something is not the same as excusing why someone does something. You can understanding a victim of childhood abuse perpetuating a cycle of abuse, but that in no way implies that their abuse is any less condemnable. ONE DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER. And to pass value judgments on "types" of characters w/o paying attention to individual presentation/narrative is just as limited a viewpoint and apologizing for these types would be ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Like, for one thing sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, and for another, I get why so many people have been frustrated by apologia in the past that they're hyper-sensitive to the possibility of it.THIS I completely get. I remember reading a general post about rape culture on tumblr and the author had said that when people say the same kind of misogynistic stuff in real life that they do on tumblr, she's far more understanding about it because she knows the people and she knows where they're coming from, regardless of whether she believes they're right or wrong. And it's completely true for me too, because the yardstick of judging reality/internet is completely different. I won't judge or side-eye my own friends for buying into the same fallacies that people on tumblr do. Also, I think the anonymity guarantee is a huge help, because you can rage to an extent that you simply CAN'T IRL because of various ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Hee, because acknowledging or identifying with Klaus's issues is "apologia" in fandom? It's 'oh obv you identify with the straight white entitled assholish abusive male disregarding all the abuse he perpetrates and you probably hate women too'. While saying he treats Caroline like she's "infinite" is about Caroline, we like Klaus because he understands Caroline's potential, our interest in Klaus is centered on Caroline, IT IS THE WOMAN AND HER SUBJECTIVITY AND POTENTIAL AND PEOPLE WHO RECOGNIZE IT WHOM WE SUPPORT, which is more "acceptable". Liking Logan should be about Veronica (not true for me at all, I loooooove Logan for himself as well), liking Damon should be about Elena. And like I said in ( ... )
Reply
Well, nothing is wrong with it. But it's hard? It's hard to experience those Klauslike feelings, harder to acknowledge them, harder than that to express them to people, and trickiest of all to defend (which one does generally have to do) the entitlement to express that identification. And by "one," I mean "I, even as someone who has plenty of ~~respectable feminist cred and a Social Justice (TM) accepted way to frame those issues, has ~Gotten Help for them IRL, and generally loves telling fandom where to shove it." That's a hell of a learning curve, just to be ~~allowed to participate in fandom conversations.
Though I guess we don't really know if this substituting of one reason for another is actually what is going on, soI think it's a fairly astute guess that it's happening sometimes? I think we can acknowledge this might be a factor without totally letting the romanticization of Klaus and his ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
OMG FITZ. Do you watch Scandal yet??? (See what I did there with the YET?)
the people who like certain characters while being fully aware of the issues they raise are constantly being told by the internet that they Are Not Feminists/Are Doing It Wrong/Are Upholding Systems Abusive To Women which makes them defensive by default and probably err on the side of over-explanations, which are then conflated to apologia.
Yeah, if we were trying to incentivize dishonesty, we could hardly do better.
Reply
Reply
YES BUT THEY ARE THE WORST OF THE WORST. Like with Fitz especially I am usually 400% attracted to that character type because he's POWERFUL and a POLITICIAN and a man, I guess, (lol @ me) BUT HE IS JUST SO REPULSIVE TO ME. SQUANDERING ALL HIS TIME RANKING WOMEN AND FEELING SORRY FOR HIMSELF AND NEVER TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. WHY THE EVER LOVING FUCK WOULD YOU? Like, he has the chance for a fascinating storyline and he squanders it on shit that's as trite and common as Damon Salvatore's plots. Ewww.
Anyway, on a more serious note.
This is very true. And I do understand that, to a degree?Sames! I found myself in the odd positioning of agreeing with both the content of this post and the content that it was arguing against. Like fandom is craaaaaaaaazy swamped with apologia, far more swamped with apologia than it is in condemnation? So. Yeah. Obvs. explaining why X Character Behaves This Way isn't necessarily the same as Justifying X Character's Heinous Behaviour, but so ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Oh yeah, I mean... That absolutely goes without saying. And of course a contextualised argument is always going to be a lot more valuable. I have never seen Supernatural (except Youtube clips of Castiel ~adjusting to the human world!) so that whole section went over my head. But as somebody who tends to stan horrible awfuls I sympathise with the frustration that comes from fellow fans indulging in apologia. Like, so many times on Tumblr I've seen somebody write a piece of analysis about a 'bad' character and explaining, perfectly rationally and consistently, how previous trauma/abuse/whatever has shaped said 'bad' character's actions, and often it's people I know and there is NO APOLOGIA THERE AT ALL. NONE. ZERO. And then of course people will reblog it ( ... )
Reply
Yeah...I'm not that generous with the benefit of the doubt. It's just not that hard to say "people co-opt fair analysis and turn it into excuse-making."
Klaus is manifestly not held accountable for his actions by the majority of his fandom, but that doesn't stop him being *my* favourite. I know people who stan Damon as well, and like, Damon doesn't hold himself accountable for his actions, but Imo that doesn't even mean the text is in any way saying accountability is diminished on his part, and like, loads and loads of people stan Damon without ever engaging in apologia, ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Yeah, you're right. I see this on Tumblr all the time. Woe. :((
"Elijah is a racist misogynist piece of shit who elevates his White Special Snowflake Madonnas over black women whom he treats as subhuman!"
I am shocked and appalled. Brand new information, tbh!
;P
Well, it's patently obvious why.
IS IT?????
I think I would also find Fitz boring if I watched Scandal, but I actually think he's less inherently boring than Paul
Could not agree more. Paul is a snooze!fest. Fitz is a rage!fest. :D
You're very different TBH because you're like, "I love this character because he is a powerful white dude politician!" Which is awesome but most of fandom is not like that, heh.
Well TBH I think powerful white dude politicians have the best of this world? (Except those who elect to become clergymen, apparently.) Obviously that's not to say that there's something ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment