huh

[kindkit]

In the neverending quest for decent TV, I've been watching House since its first episode. This is, I think, the first time I've ever done that. It feels . . . oddly like dating. I'm enjoying the show's company, but still cautious, aware of everything that could go wrong, withholding my heart until I'm more confident of the show's worthiness. (

Comments

[minim_calibre]

My sense is that TV writers and producers are, in fact, deliberately putting in male/male subtext to please a certain contingent of fans, knowing that it can readily be ignored by the other fans who aren't into it.

I think, esp. in the case of House, which is Bryan Singer's baby, that it's more likely that the deliberate m/m subtext is going in for themselves/their friends rather than for any particular subset of show fans.

[kindkit]

That certainly makes sense in the case of House. I do think, though, that given how aware mainstream journalists and media types seem to be of slash, TV producers and writers must be aware that there's an audience (a broader audience than just gay men) that wants the male/male content.

[glossing]

I do think, though, that given how aware mainstream journalists and media types seem to be of slash, TV producers and writers must be aware that there's an audience
I agree. OC producer Josh Schwartz on Ryan/Seth: There’s enough people claiming there’s a homosexual subtext between Seth and Ryan, so why make it the text? [Laughs]

[kindkit]

*headdesk*

See, that's the kind of thing I'm afraid of--subtext being treated as though it's a perfectly acceptable substitute for text.

[mattador]

I have been waiting to hear someone elaborate on the Giles & John parallels for ages. And you said the magic words: "It's making me want to write crossovers." <3

[kindkit]

Heh. For me there tends to be a dangerously large gap between wanting to write and actually writing. But who knows, maybe this will turn out to be an idea where the words can be found. *hopes*

[glossing]

Have you read Kat Allison's essay on slash without subtext? Because it's been on my mind for a long time now -- I don't know if it predates my annoyance with subtext, or coincides, or if I responded to it so strongly because of the annoyance, but it's well worth checking out. Basically, for me, there's *subtext* and then there's, for lack of a better phrase, nudging and winking. And a lot of the House/Wilson, as well as Angel/Spike (and Ryan/Seth on the OC), is nudging and winking.

The package came! Thank you for my ManSoap (does it wash away ManPain?)! G stole all the Hellblazers, so I'm only getting dribs and drabs of info, but -- Mmmm. Constantine. (We could even do a Hellblazer/Jazz crossover, you know. Just saying. To go with my Los Bros. ones.)

Miss you horribly. Chat tomorrow?

[glossing]

PS: Regarding Giles/Constantine parallels, they also both have family histories of the occult, yes? An interesting crossover might be Giles' granny and one of Constantine's ancestors.

*mwah*

[kindkit]

Yes, they do. More extremely cool possibilities. Some of Constantine's forebears seem to have been nasty as anything. But there's always Lady Joanna Constantine (she's featured in one of the Sandman books, though I forget which one). She could meet up with some cool eighteenth-century Watcher and forebear of the Gileses. (Who wouldn't be called Giles, I guess, since the Watcher line was through Giles' grandmother.)

[glossing]

Some of Constantine's forebears seem to have been nasty as anything.
All the better for Mrs. Giles to do some serious ass-kicking. *g*

She could meet up with some cool eighteenth-century Watcher and forebear of the Gileses.
Ooooooh. *dreams*

[beccaelizabeth]

Hellblazer- yes. Have all of it I could get my hands on. Paid for as much as possible, dled what I couldn't find to buy.
Complete torrent on zcult

I had a longer comment but its 0230 and my brain has turned to mush. I'll try and remember to come back later. Is one of my favourite titles and has been since I was a teenager.

[kindkit]

Actually your posts about Hellblazer were one of the reasons I gave it another chance after a bad first experience. The first Hellblazer I read was the collection Haunted, which doesn't stand on its own very well, I think. And the artwork was especially gory, which kind of turned me off. So I didn't get what all the fuss was about. Then your issue summaries got me intrigued again.

[justhuman]

My sense is that TV writers and producers are, in fact, deliberately putting in male/male subtext to please a certain contingent of fans, knowing that it can readily be ignored by the other fans who aren't into it. And that subtext can be a problem if it becomes another excuse for not having actual gay/bi characters.

That assumes that the writers/producers are the one's making the decisions. The fact still is that the network ultimately controls content and it makes it's decisions based on what's going to get more advertising dollars. A lot of the big money on TV are well established products that don't want the hassle getting phone calls from the 52%.

Will and Grace gets away with it because it's comedy and as you say, Will is terminally single. QaF is on cable, so they can get away with whatever Sho wants to try - they'll sell their network to middle America with the movies

[kindkit]

The fact still is that the network ultimately controls content and it makes it's decisions based on what's going to get more advertising dollars. A lot of the big money on TV are well established products that don't want the hassle getting phone calls from the 52%.

I am, in fact, aware that networks constrain content. But producers also struggle and negotiate with networks (as Joss did with Willow/Tara, to use your example) to get stuff on the air. And I fear that "wink wink, nudge nudge" subtext can actually stop producers from taking that step because they feel like they've done enough. See glossing's link above on subtext in The OC. If I trusted that subtext was just the dip of the toe into the water, a way into actual text, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much. But TV has joked around with male/male homoeroticism since . . . what, Three's Company? And we don't seem much closer to an acceptance of gay men in mainstream TV shows

[justhuman]

But producers also struggle and negotiate with networks (as Joss did with Willow/Tara, to use your example) to get stuff on the air.

I certainly don't like it but m/m has been a non-negotiable point on TV. It was Berverly Hill 90210 that canned two men kissing, because of public outcry. None of it is fair, but the last election defined pretty well that large portions of the American public are still resistant to accepting homosexuality. Two weeks ago on The Apprentice the teams had to design an ad for a Dove soap product. One team went with a gay theme in their ad -- now, their ad was *terrible* overall -- but one of the comments from the advertising execs that was judging the ads was they didn't think that the homosexual relationship in the ad was appropriate to the product.

But TV has joked around with male/male homoeroticism since . . . what, Three's Company? And we don't seem much closer to an acceptance of gay men in mainstream TV shows.

That was my point about Revolution Now! 25 years since Three's Company is a relatively