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.
It's not like Joss Whedon, for all that he gave us some wonderful well-rounded arse-kicking female characters, managed to avoid the dead/mad/betrayed queer stereotype either, so.
my best friend always says how she'll never watch any Whedon show because he likes killing off characters. and i try to explain to her and i can never quite manage how yes, Joss kills a lot of his characters, but i've never felt those deaths were mere explotation or just for shock value. i don't know how he does it but there's always a terrible coherence in what he writes even when he is killing characters. likewise in ships. Joss has never ever EVER done a pairing i've liked, and yet i have never begrudged him for it. it always felt true to the characters and the story and not like an something imposed by the author.
that's why for example when Tara died i never felt that horrible "oh they are killing off the gay character" vibe i get from other shows.
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.)
Basically, I don't expect my TV shows to get it right all the time, unintentional signification will and must occur. But I do not feel like it's an unrealistic demand that they try. I think it's about bloody time. And hm, on your RTD thoughts-- no, I don't think it's "intentional" or malicious, except, considering the marketing, it was rather exploitative. Then again, that is the nature of the marketing machine.
Re: Jack/Ianto fandom. It depends on which bits you hang out in, really.
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-
-and in that RTD is EPIC FAIL. he just makes the same mistakes over and over. and i'm convinced that if you try to explain to him he won't see what's wrong with Ianto's death. i bet for him it's A GOOD THING, i bet he thinks he is giving him a hero's death or some shit (since i haven't seen the episode, i don't know the tone of the whole thing, tho). like when he didn't understand why people got upset about the Doctor's treatment of Martha in season 3. he is just blind to the readings people make of his writing choices. and when you are writing prime-time telly, well, it's a good think to be aware of how the audience might react to what you write, at least have a vague idea. because otherwise you can be in a mess you never intended to be in.
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?
Yeah on the RTD stuff. The 'Heroic Sacrifice' route is used by quite a proportion of the 'dead queer on tv' tropes as well, which is why I think it's so tired. (And yeah on Martha in S3-- though I got into DW so late that I already knew what was going to happen, so I wasn't living through it, it didn't have as much of an impact because I expected it, as it were).
Well, some of the writers of my favourite shows-- The Wire and the Sopranos in particular come to mind, have outright said things like 'we don't believe in always giving the audience what they want, right now', that sometimes greater value and purpose can be gained through delay and *not* gratifying short-term audience desire, and I completely agree. TV at its best works in an arena of give and take, and it can be incredible when shows surprise you, subvert you, challenge you. But: DW and TW don't quite work along the same lines, they are prime-time, popular TV, but, more importantly, if you're going to set out to fuck with your audience in whatever way-- you really do have to be prepared to pay up. To deliver. That's the other side of the contract between creator and consumer, and that's a contract that all "art" makes with their audience. (Longwinded way of saying: no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this one.)
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 one
see, 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 and the season 4 finale were written in a rush, i believe).
and it's a shame. because i'm actually one of those few people that believe that, given the time and the proper editing, RTD can turn in very good scripts. I still think "The Second Coming" is a brilliant show. i have extreme fondness for "Casanova". there are scripts of his in the Whovers among my favourites of the new show ("Gridlock" for example).
so not even the lack of talent is an excuse in this case. they should think harder what they are going to do.
anyway, why are you getting me worked up about Ianto's death? i hated the guy!
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.
It's not like Joss Whedon, for all that he gave us some wonderful well-rounded arse-kicking female characters, managed to avoid the dead/mad/betrayed queer stereotype either, so.
my best friend always says how she'll never watch any Whedon show because he likes killing off characters. and i try to explain to her and i can never quite manage how yes, Joss kills a lot of his characters, but i've never felt those deaths were mere explotation or just for shock value. i don't know how he does it but there's always a terrible coherence in what he writes even when he is killing characters. likewise in ships. Joss has never ever EVER done a pairing i've liked, and yet i have never begrudged him for it. it always felt true to the characters and the story and not like an something imposed by the author.
that's why for example when Tara died i never felt that horrible "oh they are killing off the gay character" vibe i get from other shows.
Reply
Basically, I don't expect my TV shows to get it right all the time, unintentional signification will and must occur. But I do not feel like it's an unrealistic demand that they try. I think it's about bloody time. And hm, on your RTD thoughts-- no, I don't think it's "intentional" or malicious, except, considering the marketing, it was rather exploitative. Then again, that is the nature of the marketing machine.
Re: Jack/Ianto fandom. It depends on which bits you hang out in, really.
Reply
-and in that RTD is EPIC FAIL. he just makes the same mistakes over and over. and i'm convinced that if you try to explain to him he won't see what's wrong with Ianto's death. i bet for him it's A GOOD THING, i bet he thinks he is giving him a hero's death or some shit (since i haven't seen the episode, i don't know the tone of the whole thing, tho). like when he didn't understand why people got upset about the Doctor's treatment of Martha in season 3. he is just blind to the readings people make of his writing choices. and when you are writing prime-time telly, well, it's a good think to be aware of how the audience might react to what you write, at least have a vague idea. because otherwise you can be in a mess you never intended to be in.
Reply
Yeah on the RTD stuff. The 'Heroic Sacrifice' route is used by quite a proportion of the 'dead queer on tv' tropes as well, which is why I think it's so tired. (And yeah on Martha in S3-- though I got into DW so late that I already knew what was going to happen, so I wasn't living through it, it didn't have as much of an impact because I expected it, as it were).
Well, some of the writers of my favourite shows-- The Wire and the Sopranos in particular come to mind, have outright said things like 'we don't believe in always giving the audience what they want, right now', that sometimes greater value and purpose can be gained through delay and *not* gratifying short-term audience desire, and I completely agree. TV at its best works in an arena of give and take, and it can be incredible when shows surprise you, subvert you, challenge you. But: DW and TW don't quite work along the same lines, they are prime-time, popular TV, but, more importantly, if you're going to set out to fuck with your audience in whatever way-- you really do have to be prepared to pay up. To deliver. That's the other side of the contract between creator and consumer, and that's a contract that all "art" makes with their audience. (Longwinded way of saying: no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this one.)
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 one
see, 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 and the season 4 finale were written in a rush, i believe).
and it's a shame. because i'm actually one of those few people that believe that, given the time and the proper editing, RTD can turn in very good scripts. I still think "The Second Coming" is a brilliant show. i have extreme fondness for "Casanova". there are scripts of his in the Whovers among my favourites of the new show ("Gridlock" for example).
so not even the lack of talent is an excuse in this case. they should think harder what they are going to do.
anyway, why are you getting me worked up about Ianto's death? i hated the guy!
Reply
It's all part of my devious queer agenda! :D
Reply
Leave a comment