(no subject)
Nov. 7th, 2014 10:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Dear Apple Support -
* It is rude to put a customer on hold twice and the second time for 30 minutes.
* If you are suffering that high a call volume, you are probably doing something wrong.
* This is why I don't like gadgets...and try to limit the number I have. "Tech Support".
All this because stupid APP store unauthenticated my user id. And the damn security is keeping me from accessing it. I swear hackers are behind the security guidelines.
2. Reading about the latest fracas in the Doctor Who fandom on my flist, reminds me of why I'm glad I'm not heavily invested in the series or the fandom. But it also brings this to mind...
A: He raped her! How can you even support him after the fact..I can't stand to look at him. He should die.
B: 1) He didn't rape her, it was ahem, ATTEMPTED! and b) It's a FRIGGING tv series. Not real. Get a grip.
A: I know it's a television series..and it doesn't matter if he actually raped her or not, it was attempted, same thing.
B: Not really. And it being a "tv series" means that we are free to interpret it differently and civilly, since it is not real. I can find a character who does nasty things on a television series interesting, you certainly do...without necessarily supporting their behavior or justifying it.
A: Rape is not the same thing as murder.
B: Well, true. You aren't dead, just violated. There is that. And again, you are apparently under the delusion that your favorite character never raped anyone. Heck...there was that scene in..
A: It's not the same. He was possessed. Besides it was only attempted.
B: Right. I take back what I said previously, apparently you do justify bad behavior. I stand corrected.
A: You're impossible! I didn't mean that at all!
B: Just calling it like I see it.
Sigh. Not sure who is in the wrong here, A or B. Doesn't matter - the discussion derailed the moment emotion was introduced. Which is the difference between fan discussions and media analysis. You introduce emotion - and well the whole discussion becomes about the people discussing it, not the series. The above discussion could be about half a dozen tv shows from Rescue Me to Buffy the Vampire Slayer [Okay, maybe not Rescue Me].
In Doctor Who - it appears to be about either companions (rarely the Doctor for some reason, which feels like a societal and internalized sexism to me (mainly because a lot of the critics are women) - but whatever), or the current writers. I'm not really a true fan of the series. I saw a handful of episodes in the 70s, which I found scary and campy sort of like Lost in Space, albeit much better written. The campy nature of the series has to a degree always been a bit of a barrier - I find it difficult to take it seriously. (Odd, considering I had no problem with Battle Star Galatica or 1999 (that did scare me)...so, make of that what you will.) Which may explain why I preferred Moffat to Davies...Moffat's writing for the most part was less over-the-top and campy, and seemed somewhat smarter or more intricate. Watching some of Moffat's episodes was a bit like opening a Chinese puzzle box. The emotion was less manipulative and less mawkish, also he didn't seem to fall as easily into false sentimentality - which I find grating in certain television series. That was the main difference that I saw between the two writers. And well, Moffat has a dry and at times subtle absurdist wit, which works for me. (Why I loved his sitcom "Coupling" but find Friends cringe-inducing.) Davies humor is more overt, and based on slapstick or parody, which does not work for me quite as well.
As for the companions? Moffat is less interested in romantic entanglement with them.
And he was probably trying hard not to repeat what Davies had previously done.
Since Moffat wrote many of the episodes during Davies run, and some of the same writing team hung behind...there's not a lot of difference between Moffat and Davies takes on the series as a whole. If you aren't a fan of either - you probably don't like the revived series. Personally? I like some episodes, some I don't.
Regarding the whole debate over which writer is more sexist/misogynistic ... I've always wondered why people don't ask the hard questions regarding this. Why is the writer making these choices? Why are you personally attracted to series that have these tropes embedded in them? What do these tropes reflect about our culture? Why are they still comforting to so many people? We do after all choose what tropes we watch or read. And they wouldn't be produced or published or put on our television sets if we didn't show an interest in them, didn't watch. The professional writer tends to write to the masses - Shakespeare did, he wrote what sold. So the question shouldn't be - how Moffat or Davis is misogynistic or sexist, but rather - if you see that in the series - why are you attracted to it? And why did the writer choose to convey that? Why is it still selling? What does that say about us, not the writers who are telling the story, but the society the story reflects. For stories, I believe, are in truth reflections of the issues we are dealing with, that's why they appeal to us.
[ETA: As a side note, that occurred to me while attempting to edit this (my idea of editing appears to be adding content), women fans seem to be more negative about the female companions on the series than the male lead. This isn't just true of Doctor Who, by the way. I've noticed a trend...various television series and book series fandoms seem to have female viewers that forgive the guy just about anything, but are rather harsh on the female lead/protagonist. And...they are forgiving of male leads in other series which are nasty, but have difficulty with female characters. I noticed this in the Breaking Bad, Buffy, Supernatural, BSG, Mad Men, Lost, OUAT, and Doctor Who fandoms. Also seen it in reviews of romance novels and urban fantasy series. And it's not the male readers/fans so much as the women. The men in stark contrast seem to be harsher on their own gender. So maybe we all just have this internalized dislike of our own gender? I don't know. But I've been wondering about it.]
Haven't seen the last DW episode. Am waiting until this weekend to watch it - along with the season finale, since it's a two-parter, I think?
* It is rude to put a customer on hold twice and the second time for 30 minutes.
* If you are suffering that high a call volume, you are probably doing something wrong.
* This is why I don't like gadgets...and try to limit the number I have. "Tech Support".
All this because stupid APP store unauthenticated my user id. And the damn security is keeping me from accessing it. I swear hackers are behind the security guidelines.
2. Reading about the latest fracas in the Doctor Who fandom on my flist, reminds me of why I'm glad I'm not heavily invested in the series or the fandom. But it also brings this to mind...
A: He raped her! How can you even support him after the fact..I can't stand to look at him. He should die.
B: 1) He didn't rape her, it was ahem, ATTEMPTED! and b) It's a FRIGGING tv series. Not real. Get a grip.
A: I know it's a television series..and it doesn't matter if he actually raped her or not, it was attempted, same thing.
B: Not really. And it being a "tv series" means that we are free to interpret it differently and civilly, since it is not real. I can find a character who does nasty things on a television series interesting, you certainly do...without necessarily supporting their behavior or justifying it.
A: Rape is not the same thing as murder.
B: Well, true. You aren't dead, just violated. There is that. And again, you are apparently under the delusion that your favorite character never raped anyone. Heck...there was that scene in..
A: It's not the same. He was possessed. Besides it was only attempted.
B: Right. I take back what I said previously, apparently you do justify bad behavior. I stand corrected.
A: You're impossible! I didn't mean that at all!
B: Just calling it like I see it.
Sigh. Not sure who is in the wrong here, A or B. Doesn't matter - the discussion derailed the moment emotion was introduced. Which is the difference between fan discussions and media analysis. You introduce emotion - and well the whole discussion becomes about the people discussing it, not the series. The above discussion could be about half a dozen tv shows from Rescue Me to Buffy the Vampire Slayer [Okay, maybe not Rescue Me].
In Doctor Who - it appears to be about either companions (rarely the Doctor for some reason, which feels like a societal and internalized sexism to me (mainly because a lot of the critics are women) - but whatever), or the current writers. I'm not really a true fan of the series. I saw a handful of episodes in the 70s, which I found scary and campy sort of like Lost in Space, albeit much better written. The campy nature of the series has to a degree always been a bit of a barrier - I find it difficult to take it seriously. (Odd, considering I had no problem with Battle Star Galatica or 1999 (that did scare me)...so, make of that what you will.) Which may explain why I preferred Moffat to Davies...Moffat's writing for the most part was less over-the-top and campy, and seemed somewhat smarter or more intricate. Watching some of Moffat's episodes was a bit like opening a Chinese puzzle box. The emotion was less manipulative and less mawkish, also he didn't seem to fall as easily into false sentimentality - which I find grating in certain television series. That was the main difference that I saw between the two writers. And well, Moffat has a dry and at times subtle absurdist wit, which works for me. (Why I loved his sitcom "Coupling" but find Friends cringe-inducing.) Davies humor is more overt, and based on slapstick or parody, which does not work for me quite as well.
As for the companions? Moffat is less interested in romantic entanglement with them.
And he was probably trying hard not to repeat what Davies had previously done.
Since Moffat wrote many of the episodes during Davies run, and some of the same writing team hung behind...there's not a lot of difference between Moffat and Davies takes on the series as a whole. If you aren't a fan of either - you probably don't like the revived series. Personally? I like some episodes, some I don't.
Regarding the whole debate over which writer is more sexist/misogynistic ... I've always wondered why people don't ask the hard questions regarding this. Why is the writer making these choices? Why are you personally attracted to series that have these tropes embedded in them? What do these tropes reflect about our culture? Why are they still comforting to so many people? We do after all choose what tropes we watch or read. And they wouldn't be produced or published or put on our television sets if we didn't show an interest in them, didn't watch. The professional writer tends to write to the masses - Shakespeare did, he wrote what sold. So the question shouldn't be - how Moffat or Davis is misogynistic or sexist, but rather - if you see that in the series - why are you attracted to it? And why did the writer choose to convey that? Why is it still selling? What does that say about us, not the writers who are telling the story, but the society the story reflects. For stories, I believe, are in truth reflections of the issues we are dealing with, that's why they appeal to us.
[ETA: As a side note, that occurred to me while attempting to edit this (my idea of editing appears to be adding content), women fans seem to be more negative about the female companions on the series than the male lead. This isn't just true of Doctor Who, by the way. I've noticed a trend...various television series and book series fandoms seem to have female viewers that forgive the guy just about anything, but are rather harsh on the female lead/protagonist. And...they are forgiving of male leads in other series which are nasty, but have difficulty with female characters. I noticed this in the Breaking Bad, Buffy, Supernatural, BSG, Mad Men, Lost, OUAT, and Doctor Who fandoms. Also seen it in reviews of romance novels and urban fantasy series. And it's not the male readers/fans so much as the women. The men in stark contrast seem to be harsher on their own gender. So maybe we all just have this internalized dislike of our own gender? I don't know. But I've been wondering about it.]
Haven't seen the last DW episode. Am waiting until this weekend to watch it - along with the season finale, since it's a two-parter, I think?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 11:46 am (UTC)Don't be silly. If people started asking these kinds of questions they'd have to examine their own biases and internalised issues - which is difficult and complicated. It's so much easier to just yell at a showrunner for not ticking all the boxes in your head. (Even when they are mutually exclusive - like you, I am reminded of the Spike Wars...)
no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 05:29 pm (UTC)Hmm... I've never seen any character to inspire such visceral hate as Spike, but then I wasn't in a lot of fandoms and you're probably right about those other cases. Still, in Buffy fandom the tendency was quite the opposite - Willow was loved by many no matter what she did while Spike got an inordinate amount of hate.
And then there's Wesley Crusher from Star Trek - the most hated character in any fandom ever, I dare say. :) So much so that he became a pop-culture symbol for it.
And on the subject of Doctor Who - I stumbled on it only this year, was totally stunned and absolutely fell in love with RTD era, and when I went online to see what people were writing at the time (TWoP forums or old LJ communites), I was surprised at how much fandom hate 10th Doctor got. Not quite like Spike, but close. And like Spike, it's either love him or hate him, very divisive figure... Don't think any new-school companion got as much negativity and controversy, so for DW fandom - nope, there was plenty of criticism of the male protagonist as well.
And RTD got a hefty amount of criticism and hate too, and often justified. It's just it's been a while, all those RTD battles are done and now the fandom energy, both love and hate, and all the bitching, goes towards the current showrunner. It's just the way of things...
As for how people deal with problematic themes in art, and why are we attracted to certain things - I would be careful in passing judgement on people for what they like and dislike, because people are seeing different things in the same work of art, and the same work can resonate with people differently.
Like with Spike - for some people he resonates as misogynist and rapist, and they react to him on a visceral level. And they have this right. While for me Spike's story is a story of redemption, love, and being absolutely comfortable with female authority. But again, both those readings are valid for different people. And when people are arguing like in your A and B dialogue, they are arguing about different shows in their heads, not the same one.
Same goes for content which some see as problematic and others don't - not because they think it's not problematic, like issues of female agency etc., but just because they see different content in same work of art, they react to a different content.
Like Joss works, it's so often can have many meanings and people pick and choose and react to what resonates with them.
Is "Chosen" a message of female empowerment or yet another rape metaphor with girls having forced something upon them against their will? Both are valid for different people.
Is Doctor Horrible just yet one more case of "fridging", or is it yet another take on Dostoyevskiy's Raskolnikov and the right to kill for the better future? Both are valid for different people. Etc.
Circling back to Moffat. Can't say much here, but hope you'll enjoy the finale, the 1st part was very good and had a great character development in it.
I don't like all of his characters or stories, just like with RTD - there are some missteps here and there. I do think though that he's the best, the most talented writer on the British TV right now and that Doctor Who is incredibly lucky to have him. His creativity,m vision, layers of meanings he's bringing in far outweigh those missteps (same with RTD - he brought back the show from the dead, he made it a cultural phenomenon, he brought all that passion and vision with it - far outweighs the bad for me). All those hating on Moffat right now would feel his absence very keenly of he'd decide he had enough.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 11:29 pm (UTC)We do differ on a few things. I didn't mean to convey that male characters never get bashed by fans, just that female fans like yourself have a tendency to be more forgiving of the male characters flaws than the female's. And many female fans bash the female character. Granted this is what I've picked up on.
I don't know I saw a lot of Willow and Buffy hate online -- mainly from female fans, in particular on the following boards: Buffy Cross & Stake, Bronze Beta, Buffy Forums, Angel's Soul Board, ATPO (although less so, since that was a smarter board, so less character hate and when it was expressed the bashers sort of got snarked off the board), and various others I don't remember any longer. This was during the series. During the comics? Lots of Buffy and Willow hate.
(I was a Spike fan by the way.)
And just lurking on the sidelines...I've seen a lot of companion hate, in the news outlets and referred to by people on my correspondence list. Have not seen any Doctor Who or 10 hate. But then the areas I've been online are big 10 fans. My flist adores 10. And they've not mentioned it. But I'm admittedly not involved in the external fandom.
Your experience clearly differs from mine. I was merely sharing my own perspective on the matter based on my own experience. Like you are.
Not enjoying this season of DW sorry to say. To date the only episode that I enjoyed was "Listen" - it was rather clever, and unexpected.
While I enjoy Moffat's writing in some respects, he doesn't handle some topics and emotional situations well. So I find he's writing and plotting to be a bit uneven.