I love this and completely agree with all of it. I actually myself like Carlisle as a character and have often described him as 'morally ambiguous' but what I think I meant by that is that he is a character with ambiguities like most of the characters are, as opposed to actually being a straight ambiguous male character. Yet I in no way ship him with Mary.
I think you touched on some things here that a lot of the fandom has a hard time understanding, which is that what we write and the art we produce doesn't consist in a vacuum just because we're 'having fun on the internet.' I think that people like to think that their internet life is somehow separate from their real emotions, feelings, and actions, and I think it's true to an extent, but I do firmly believe that the characters we care for and how we treat them says a lot about what we think of the world. I don't get this supposition that what we like and 'stan' for is divorced from our own person. I like fiction as an extension of who I am and I'd like to think it says something about me as person, but that's just me. Additionally this fandom has no real sense of what it means to be critiqued, which is just nonsensical. If someone publicly puts something up for consumption, it has the right to be critiqued--attacked, even-- if the ideas in it do not align with what I think is productive for us as humans. A lot of the times it's just details that can be let go, but it's bothersome to see it displayed in often such misogynistic and ill-contrived fashions, not to mention plainly divorced from the characters' moralities themselves. AU /= OOC
Well I thought he was great for what he was and I thought IG did a terrific job with him. IDK, if I were writing an S2 AU, though (especially knowing that Matthew was going to die young and so early into their marriage), I think I would dispense with Richard and Lavinia -- or at least the idea of long engagements to other people -- and have M/M work out their unrequited/unresolved feelings some other way.
have often described him as 'morally ambiguous' but what I think I meant by that is that he is a character with ambiguities like most of the characters are
Yeah, that's a good point. He has ambiguities in the sense that there's a lot we don't know. But there really aren't shades of gray with him. He's a pretty clear-cut figure. My issue is if authors are going to just make up stuff to fill in the gaps -- even though it conflicts with what we do know or there's nothing from canon to support it -- then they should just concede that they've essentially created an OC.
what we write and the art we produce doesn't consist in a vacuum just because we're 'having fun on the internet.'
Bingo. Well put. And it's interesting that you mention the way we treat characters that we care about. I almost put something in this entry to that effect ... but it was more along the lines of musing out loud whether it's because of the ethos of DA -- the fact that it's essentially about family and we view the characters almost as family members -- that we care about them more or have greater investment than we do the characters in other universes. Obviously not everyone feels this way, I understand. But for those of us who really love Mary, for example ... we CARE about her well-being. By comparison, as much as I love Joan (Mad Men), I'm not quite as protective of her.
Additionally this fandom has no real sense of what it means to be critiqued,
I agree and I think fic authors (not all of them of course) are particularly guilty of this. (It sort of boggles the mind, too, particularly for the ones who aspire to publish their own stories one day. If they think they're never going to get an unkind word from an editor or critic or reader, they've got another think coming. ... Sort of like how DS' inability to deal maturely with "haters" on twitter suggests maybe he shouldn't be in the public eye ... ditto for fic authors.)
but it's bothersome to see it displayed in often such misogynistic and ill-contrived fashions, not to mention plainly divorced from the characters' moralities themselves. AU /= OOC
WORD. One thing that really gets under my skin is the suggestion that M/R is a reaction against patriarchy and, therefore, empowers or liberates Mary to "escape" the toxicity of Downton. Riiight. Because the toxicity of Carlisle's household is so much better? And because Carlisle is so far removed from patriarchal values? They should just be honest about what they're doing and why. But don't trot out misogyny and dress it up to look like feminism. Just NO.
I think you touched on some things here that a lot of the fandom has a hard time understanding, which is that what we write and the art we produce doesn't consist in a vacuum just because we're 'having fun on the internet.' I think that people like to think that their internet life is somehow separate from their real emotions, feelings, and actions, and I think it's true to an extent, but I do firmly believe that the characters we care for and how we treat them says a lot about what we think of the world. I don't get this supposition that what we like and 'stan' for is divorced from our own person. I like fiction as an extension of who I am and I'd like to think it says something about me as person, but that's just me. Additionally this fandom has no real sense of what it means to be critiqued, which is just nonsensical. If someone publicly puts something up for consumption, it has the right to be critiqued--attacked, even-- if the ideas in it do not align with what I think is productive for us as humans. A lot of the times it's just details that can be let go, but it's bothersome to see it displayed in often such misogynistic and ill-contrived fashions, not to mention plainly divorced from the characters' moralities themselves. AU /= OOC
Thanks for this post.
Reply
I actually myself like Carlisle as a character
Well I thought he was great for what he was and I thought IG did a terrific job with him. IDK, if I were writing an S2 AU, though (especially knowing that Matthew was going to die young and so early into their marriage), I think I would dispense with Richard and Lavinia -- or at least the idea of long engagements to other people -- and have M/M work out their unrequited/unresolved feelings some other way.
have often described him as 'morally ambiguous' but what I think I meant by that is that he is a character with ambiguities like most of the characters are
Yeah, that's a good point. He has ambiguities in the sense that there's a lot we don't know. But there really aren't shades of gray with him. He's a pretty clear-cut figure. My issue is if authors are going to just make up stuff to fill in the gaps -- even though it conflicts with what we do know or there's nothing from canon to support it -- then they should just concede that they've essentially created an OC.
what we write and the art we produce doesn't consist in a vacuum just because we're 'having fun on the internet.'
Bingo. Well put. And it's interesting that you mention the way we treat characters that we care about. I almost put something in this entry to that effect ... but it was more along the lines of musing out loud whether it's because of the ethos of DA -- the fact that it's essentially about family and we view the characters almost as family members -- that we care about them more or have greater investment than we do the characters in other universes. Obviously not everyone feels this way, I understand. But for those of us who really love Mary, for example ... we CARE about her well-being. By comparison, as much as I love Joan (Mad Men), I'm not quite as protective of her.
Additionally this fandom has no real sense of what it means to be critiqued,
I agree and I think fic authors (not all of them of course) are particularly guilty of this. (It sort of boggles the mind, too, particularly for the ones who aspire to publish their own stories one day. If they think they're never going to get an unkind word from an editor or critic or reader, they've got another think coming. ... Sort of like how DS' inability to deal maturely with "haters" on twitter suggests maybe he shouldn't be in the public eye ... ditto for fic authors.)
but it's bothersome to see it displayed in often such misogynistic and ill-contrived fashions, not to mention plainly divorced from the characters' moralities themselves. AU /= OOC
WORD. One thing that really gets under my skin is the suggestion that M/R is a reaction against patriarchy and, therefore, empowers or liberates Mary to "escape" the toxicity of Downton. Riiight. Because the toxicity of Carlisle's household is so much better? And because Carlisle is so far removed from patriarchal values? They should just be honest about what they're doing and why. But don't trot out misogyny and dress it up to look like feminism. Just NO.
Thanks for the comments.
Reply
Leave a comment