even if I fucking hated Ianto i know what it feels to be bummed about a character death so internet hugs all around.
There's so much wasted potential-- for happiness. For love. For life. And yeah, the rational part of me is saying: that's the whole point,
i remember getting that feeling when Owen died, yes, (not that I was incredibly devastated - i don't really care much for anyone in this show unless it's Andy or Gwen but i liked Owen a lot), i guess you could see the theme there, and i agree that something must break in the pattern.
Thank you for internet hugs despite your dislike of Ianto. :)
I have tea now, and I'm about to rewatch, so feeling marginally better. Probably will be on an upswing by the time the rest of the internets catch up with this.
It does make a horrible sort of sense, it's a very interesting and valid theme to explore, and the episode was bloody great. But also, another dead queer on TV. That part, I think, I will stay angry about.
tea always makes things better. that's why i moved to UK, hee.
oh well, you know Rusty, he just hates minorities. and fat people. also, i've been hearing this "how dare you kill Ianto, he's gay" argument all over and am i the only one who's always been vaguely irritated when people call Ianto "gay". as far as i'm concerned Lisa counts, too. or bisexuality really doesn't exist in fandom? (one of the reasons i haven't told my family i'm bisexual is that i'm sure they'll say "it doesn't exist"/"it's just a phase"). i'm okay with using the word "queer", which is more inclusive and pertains not just to the choice of sexual partners but the Ianto=gay thing has always rubbed me the wrong way.
sorry about the rant. i guess it's neither here nor there. but hey, i've just distracted you, haven't i?
Heh, you certainly have. And oh, I think you bring up something that CoE especially is/was playing out-- the difficulty of labels, and how, to most people outside Torchwood, the fact that Ianto's shagging Jack makes him gay. But he seems to view it as: he's shagging Jack, period. Bisexuality is still rather invisible, yeah, and the slurs are just slightly different-- I too have gotten the "it's neither here nor there", "it's a phase", "make a choice", "but surely that's just being greedy"-- delivered with a laugh, of course. So yeah, I think esp. given the canon we've gotten about Ianto's struggle with self-identification, calling him gay is a bit much, he doesn't seem to self-identify that way. And yes, Lisa does and should count! (The invisibility/writing out of female characters in slash fandom is an entirely different conversation, but I try to be aware of this in my own stories, and yeah, Lisa suffers from this, big time
( ... )
I think Torchwood does a decent job of giving some visibility to bisexual characters (I mean, there's Jack and he's pretty vocal about how much he likes, well, everything). i'm fine with the canon. it's fandom what worries me, and how i have seen little exploration of that difficulty with labels that we talk about. and yes, the tendency to writing off/ignoring Lisa by some part of the Jack/Ianto fans is a bit irritating, truth be told. but then again i'm always quite sensitive when it comes to writers neglecting some canon issues for the sake of shippiness (i think one of the things that i'm most proud of, as a Doctor Who fanfic writer is that in my Doctor/Martha i always try to handle Rose as sensitively as i humanly can).
Rusty, to start with, is not a very good writer,. so even if there are no evil designs beyond all that (and i believe there aren't -i've met the guy, he is rather sweet, i don't believe he is purposely being offensive with this), it's just that, he doesn't know how to do it better. which is no excuse of course.
Ah, see. I have lost faith in Joss Whedon somewhat after the-- IMHO-- extraordinarily exploitative death in Dr Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog, which you may or may not have seen. And I have some real issues with his handling of all of the very creepy, unpleasant undertones of the central premise of Dollhouse. (Tara's death, yeah, it was horrible and wrenching in the good way, but I think he certainly had some major issues in terms of the symbolism of magic-- it started out symbolising their joyous, experimental lesbian love, and ended up being a drug-parallel, and the thing is: you can't help but read those two significations together, and then it becomes very problematic. Willow must quit magic to be "normalised", and later on, kissing Kennedy turns her into Warren-- yes, it's reading into it a lot, but that's what Joss asks us to do by giving us clear parallels and symbolism
( ... )
I don't think Joss Whedon gets it right all the time, not by far (though i don't share most people's concerns about Penny's death because for me it was meant to be extraordinarily exploitative from the beginning and i just thought it was fitting for that story that he'd used that particular cliche we've seen a million times -on the other hand, i do see why people got angry about it and probably is me reading it all wrong) but i do agree that it's time writers and producers try at least. also, i think they should learn from their mistakes
( ... )
Ah, no, I see what you mean. See, I read it as attempting to clearly subvert the genre it was aiming rather than subverting-by-embodiment re: Penny's 'disposable woman' death, which was why it (for me as a reader/viewer) failed). At the time, it didn't bother me, but then it rankled. I think we need more TV that actively subverts, rather than faux or meta-subverts. The ironic joke is easier, but surely that's just sidestepping rather than addressing the problem
( ... )
The ironic joke is easier, but surely that's just sidestepping rather than addressing the problem?
I agree with that. And see? I'm too dumb to properly discuss Joss Whedon but I enjoyed Dr.Horrible in that capacity of "subverting-by-embodiment" but I was also the first to say back in the day that it could have been something infinitely better if it hadn't limited by its own "birth of a villain" vocation. mainly because letting Penny die still thinking that Captain Hammer was the hero is incredibly excruciating for me as an audience. But on the whole Dr.Horrible issue i was on the side of those who actually liked it.
no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this onesee, I'm the first one who wants tv shows that don't give audience what they want (but what they need) but that's not the case here. the writers of Doctor Who and Torchwood are not bothering the viewers on purpose or with a plan, they actually don't know what they are doing. they make things up as they go. they write in an rush (both the season 3 finale
( ... )
As an addendum: it also irks me because his death was so sexualised as well. All of the little death-related comments are either brought on by or lead up to sexual innuendo/his sexual relationship with Jack. Understandable, as Jack can't die, and that reminds him of his own mortality. But-- his death is bound up with his feelings towards Jack. (Yes, it made narrative sense and everything.) But it was a big flashing sign saying 'here is the queer love interest. here is the dead queer love interest'. He died as a lover not a soldier, and while that might please the fangirl-y parts of my brain, it grates on the critical analysis portions of it. For Ianto: sex and death are inextricable, and that is exactly the nature of the 'dead queer on tv' trope.
sex and death are inextricable, and that is exactly the nature of the 'dead queer on tv' trope.
i hate when they do that, really. it takes me back to that Shirley McLaine/Audrey Hepburn movie. it used to be that all gay characters had to die, they had to "pay" for what they were. it's very uncomfortable when even nowadays i get flashes of that perverse logic. they might not be intended but they are disturbing anyway.
Yeah, exactly. Considering that it bills itself as groundbreaking and progressive and engaged, I wanted a little bit more thought about the unintended messages/subtexts, basically!
Yeah when he was talking to his sister about it, she asked if he'd gone bender and he said, "It's not... It's just Jack." and that he wasn't sure what it was and wasn't broadcasting it. It's just because Jack is a force of nature. :P And I think Ianto goes for people who are confident and outgoing, as well, the implication is that Lisa was quite like that as well, in some of the off-screen extra materials.
even if I fucking hated Ianto i know what it feels to be bummed about a character death so internet hugs all around.
There's so much wasted potential-- for happiness. For love. For life. And yeah, the rational part of me is saying: that's the whole point,
i remember getting that feeling when Owen died, yes, (not that I was incredibly devastated - i don't really care much for anyone in this show unless it's Andy or Gwen but i liked Owen a lot), i guess you could see the theme there, and i agree that something must break in the pattern.
Reply
I have tea now, and I'm about to rewatch, so feeling marginally better. Probably will be on an upswing by the time the rest of the internets catch up with this.
It does make a horrible sort of sense, it's a very interesting and valid theme to explore, and the episode was bloody great. But also, another dead queer on TV. That part, I think, I will stay angry about.
Reply
oh well, you know Rusty, he just hates minorities. and fat people. also, i've been hearing this "how dare you kill Ianto, he's gay" argument all over and am i the only one who's always been vaguely irritated when people call Ianto "gay". as far as i'm concerned Lisa counts, too. or bisexuality really doesn't exist in fandom? (one of the reasons i haven't told my family i'm bisexual is that i'm sure they'll say "it doesn't exist"/"it's just a phase"). i'm okay with using the word "queer", which is more inclusive and pertains not just to the choice of sexual partners but the Ianto=gay thing has always rubbed me the wrong way.
sorry about the rant. i guess it's neither here nor there. but hey, i've just distracted you, haven't i?
Reply
Reply
Rusty, to start with, is not a very good writer,. so even if there are no evil designs beyond all that (and i believe there aren't -i've met the guy, he is rather sweet, i don't believe he is purposely being offensive with this), it's just that, he doesn't know how to do it better. which is no excuse of course.
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I agree with that. And see? I'm too dumb to properly discuss Joss Whedon but I enjoyed Dr.Horrible in that capacity of "subverting-by-embodiment" but I was also the first to say back in the day that it could have been something infinitely better if it hadn't limited by its own "birth of a villain" vocation. mainly because letting Penny die still thinking that Captain Hammer was the hero is incredibly excruciating for me as an audience. But on the whole Dr.Horrible issue i was on the side of those who actually liked it.
no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this onesee, I'm the first one who wants tv shows that don't give audience what they want (but what they need) but that's not the case here. the writers of Doctor Who and Torchwood are not bothering the viewers on purpose or with a plan, they actually don't know what they are doing. they make things up as they go. they write in an rush (both the season 3 finale ( ... )
Reply
It's all part of my devious queer agenda! :D
Reply
(Aaand, I'll stop being pedantic/longwinded now!)
Reply
i hate when they do that, really. it takes me back to that Shirley McLaine/Audrey Hepburn movie. it used to be that all gay characters had to die, they had to "pay" for what they were. it's very uncomfortable when even nowadays i get flashes of that perverse logic. they might not be intended but they are disturbing anyway.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment