(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. I found myself agreeing in part with this assessment of The Josh Whedon Wonder Woman Script by the Mary Sue.

Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.

For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.

Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.

2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.

What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.

Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.

They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.

I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.

Comments

[elisi]

While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
And quite right too. It's *her* story. Making it all about a man, and how he copes, is just one more way of stealing women's stories from out under them. *cheers for the film that got made*

[cjlasky7]

One of the traps in writing an archetypal character like Wonder Woman is to treat the character like an archetype. In other words, she's not an individual with feelings, desires and goals, she's something to be discussed, commented upon, contextualized. No matter how well intentioned, this approach deprives the character of agency; she is the focus of attention, but she is not the protagonist.

The new Wonder Woman movie avoids this trap in the simplest way possible -- by telling a story about the character's emotional journey. She's not an archetype, she's not (sing it like the 70s theme music) "Wondah Wo-man!", she's Diana of Themyscira.

I do agree that the sexism of WWI England was downplayed in the movie; but in retrospect, it's a smart decision, because worrying too much about what the men think would make it about them, not her. This is her story; questions of how the rest of the world sees it can come later.

[yourlibrarian]

I like the Smart Bitches site a good deal even though I almost never read romances (even the m/m stories I've bought have often been things like detective or mystery stories). I think the way it's been evolving has been interesting to watch. I think that when a site develops a good comments section it's often a cue that it's found the right audience.

I hadn't heard this podcast but I agree it's interesting for the reasons you mentioned. I read very little romance because I find it disappointing. I've found one author I particularly like, and I try to read within genres I'm already interested in (which has also proven disappointing).

Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally.

That's a good point. It's super obvious in something like Cabin, but his habit of trying to disrupt tropes and expectations is just the same thing on a smaller scale. I didn't care for his script as a whole for reasons I went into but I did really like how he viewed Diana's likely impact and interaction with the world given the sort of life she's led and culture she is familiar with. It was just entirely different, and presented her as the alien she is. And regarding the feminist issue, my favorite bit of the script addressed it in a way you don't see at all in the current film:

"A cute little girl of 10 stands nearby at the bottom of a gnarled tree. She calls out "Lady?" (points up) "My cat is stuck in that tree."

Diana looks up, sees the cat stuck on a branch, looks back at the girl with dismissive incomprehension.

"Climb it."

I think that speaks very well to your point about what he was trying to do (and why his script would likely never get made, then or now). He notes the girl is 10, not a very small child, and the tree is gnarled, not some tall straight thing that would be unusually difficult to climb. Diana can't understand why this girl wouldn't solve her own problem, because she's never lived in a society where women are raised to be dependent on others. It reminds me of a comment I just posted about regarding the effect of the movie on kids. From the photo, I'm guessing the daughter is about 6:

"Just last night she said out of the blue, ‘I thought girls were always weak, but actually we’re strong plus lots of other things, even trouble-makers in a good way.'”"

Who would have taught her girls were weak? No one on Themyscira, that's for sure. A warrior people who have nothing to do with the modern world and have banned men for very good reasons don't seem likely to be the good fairies that Diana largely is in the film. I did like the movie and am super happy it's done well. But it was a very safe film in any number of ways, whereas Joss was not going for either safe or likable which is a very different approach (not to mention setting and plot).

Although I raised some similar points myself, anyone who thinks this wasn't as much Steve Trevor's film as Diana's needs to reconsider a number of elements, including some mentioned here: http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2017/06/are-all-the-men-really-necessary-a-critical-look-at-wonder-woman/