![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatPresents wrapped finally, along with all the shopping completed. Also a lovely day, sunny, and expected to reach 68/70 degrees F, I have no idea what that is in C. Let's just say it's short sleeve weather, and be done with it.
This morning's paper, the Island Packet, which has less news in it than the Metro, an accomplishment...did have a rather interesting column by the local rabbi, brad bloom, about freedoms we abuse or how we've handled them to date.
*freedom to hate someone from another religion
*freedom to judge others unfairly
*freedom to fear and disparage other religions you know nothing about
*freedom to believe that finanical or career sucess only belongs to your efforts
*freedom to ignore the most vulnerable in our country
*freedom to be a victim - bitter life hasn't turned out your way, while ignoring all the things you have.
*freedom to abuse the charity of others
*freedom to lie to yourself
Rather interesting article..focusing on intolerance of other's faiths. Particularly faiths and views that aren't ours. The gist of the article is: "We are a country that constantly speaks of individual rights and freedoms. Yet, when do we ask whether what we do and what we say to others is right? What about our responsibilities to be respectful, righteous and tolerant of others who are not like us? When will we hear people fighting for the responsibility to be humble, to think before we speak, to know that the values we claim to be sacred in our respective faith traditions apply to us and not just to those we judge....
This time of year provides us all the opportunity to ask some hard questions as it does to celebrate the goodness in the human soul. It is a time not only to remember our rights and freedoms but also our responsibilities toward healing the world and respecting the dignity of humankind - especially those who are not like us and who we think do not measure up to our standards."
Oddly, I found myself thinking about online fan/cultural interactions as well. My own and others. We can be so intolerant of one another's tastes even if they are as innocuous as a tv series, a fictional character relationship, or a series of books or genre.
I'm admittedly somewhat ashamed of my disparaging rants against those cultural pieces of work that I personally despise. From Stephanie Meyer's Twilight to Joss Whedon's. Albeit few, there they are. Yet, hey, human. I have tried not to disparage those who adore them.
Was thinking about this lately in regards to the Twilight fandom...which has been ruthlessly mocked by the "cult" and/or Whedon fandom, myself included. Having read a few essays by people who do love the books, I have come to the conclusion that while these books may not be my cup of tea per se, they are clearly someone else's and while I have the "right"/"freedom" to judge them, should I? Particularly when I have my own somewhat controversial tastes? I was reading Mark Watches Buffy (the episode entitlted "Angel") and was hit by the continuous ranting against Twilight and bolstering of the Angel episode against it. It felt...well, wrong somehow? Tearing down something someone else loved to build something you love up? They are different things.
I tried to read Twilight and gave up, that particular trope doesn't work for me, but neither does Breaking Bad, Bones, CSI, and well...Proust..nor for that matter did the Buffy/Angel romance in the long term. In the short term - when I first saw it, live, it did. But I saw it very differently than Mark did, in part because I'm female, much older than he is, heterosexual, and saw it live on tv without anyone to discuss it with - this was back in 1997, I wasn't on the net back then. Back then and even now - the romance is basically the heterosexual female fantasy - the young unpopular girl meets the older very attractive guy - who saves her or helps her numerous times, but disappears shortly after, he takes an interest in her. That's in numerous teen romance novels -as we women know all to well. It's actually the counter to the unpopular/nerdy boy fantasy of the hot older gal taking an interest in him. Whether she be a teacher or a cheerleader - which to be fair, Buffy did try to do with Xander (with both Cordelia and the teacher in Teacher's Pet). To state that Buffy/Angel did this popular female romantic trope first and subverted it first - and Meyer merely copied it, is well ignoring the existing trope that pre-dates Whedon et al by about 100 years. All you need do is read Richardson's Clarissa to know that someone beat Whedon to the punch regarding the horrors of such a relationship, or Bram Stoker's Dracula or various other gothic horror tales. Or for that matter, William Shakespeare and Marvel comics, plus a whole slew of daytime soap operas.
Meyer is as innovative as Whedon in her take on the old established trope. Her twists are just different ones...from the essays I've read and the plot breakdowns, Meyer focuses on female fears that would not occur to many men - the fear of sexual penetration, the violence of sex, the violent reprecussions of sex which can be child-birth...the desire to be free and physically powerful like a man. Edward represents freedom to Bella, a freedom she yearns for...power. Whedon's take on the trope is in some respects a decidedly male one, he skims over many of the female desires and fears - by making Buffy physically powerful or Angel's equal in power. By doing that (which I admittedly loved) he jumps over the reason the fantasy often exists and changes it completely - Buffy doesn't yearn for Angel's power, she already has it. She doesn't yearn for his freedom, she has it. We discuss gender a lot, but to ignore the differences and the societal view of gender...I don't think we can. When it comes to how our society and world view gender? Meyer's Twilight in some respects is the reality, while Whedon's Buffy is the fantasy.
I may not like Meyer's execution and may find her metaphor's sloppy or difficult to digest, but I am also not a small 12 year old girl.
At any rate, I feel the need to apologize to the Twilight fans out there for any posts that I've written that disparages what they love. While it is okay to be critical...I think a modicum of respect is also required. That goes for any rants, disparaging remarks, etc that I've made regarding Whedon and Buffy comics as well. There's something to be said for not reading, watching and/or discussing things you do not like. ;-)
This morning's paper, the Island Packet, which has less news in it than the Metro, an accomplishment...did have a rather interesting column by the local rabbi, brad bloom, about freedoms we abuse or how we've handled them to date.
*freedom to hate someone from another religion
*freedom to judge others unfairly
*freedom to fear and disparage other religions you know nothing about
*freedom to believe that finanical or career sucess only belongs to your efforts
*freedom to ignore the most vulnerable in our country
*freedom to be a victim - bitter life hasn't turned out your way, while ignoring all the things you have.
*freedom to abuse the charity of others
*freedom to lie to yourself
Rather interesting article..focusing on intolerance of other's faiths. Particularly faiths and views that aren't ours. The gist of the article is: "We are a country that constantly speaks of individual rights and freedoms. Yet, when do we ask whether what we do and what we say to others is right? What about our responsibilities to be respectful, righteous and tolerant of others who are not like us? When will we hear people fighting for the responsibility to be humble, to think before we speak, to know that the values we claim to be sacred in our respective faith traditions apply to us and not just to those we judge....
This time of year provides us all the opportunity to ask some hard questions as it does to celebrate the goodness in the human soul. It is a time not only to remember our rights and freedoms but also our responsibilities toward healing the world and respecting the dignity of humankind - especially those who are not like us and who we think do not measure up to our standards."
Oddly, I found myself thinking about online fan/cultural interactions as well. My own and others. We can be so intolerant of one another's tastes even if they are as innocuous as a tv series, a fictional character relationship, or a series of books or genre.
I'm admittedly somewhat ashamed of my disparaging rants against those cultural pieces of work that I personally despise. From Stephanie Meyer's Twilight to Joss Whedon's. Albeit few, there they are. Yet, hey, human. I have tried not to disparage those who adore them.
Was thinking about this lately in regards to the Twilight fandom...which has been ruthlessly mocked by the "cult" and/or Whedon fandom, myself included. Having read a few essays by people who do love the books, I have come to the conclusion that while these books may not be my cup of tea per se, they are clearly someone else's and while I have the "right"/"freedom" to judge them, should I? Particularly when I have my own somewhat controversial tastes? I was reading Mark Watches Buffy (the episode entitlted "Angel") and was hit by the continuous ranting against Twilight and bolstering of the Angel episode against it. It felt...well, wrong somehow? Tearing down something someone else loved to build something you love up? They are different things.
I tried to read Twilight and gave up, that particular trope doesn't work for me, but neither does Breaking Bad, Bones, CSI, and well...Proust..nor for that matter did the Buffy/Angel romance in the long term. In the short term - when I first saw it, live, it did. But I saw it very differently than Mark did, in part because I'm female, much older than he is, heterosexual, and saw it live on tv without anyone to discuss it with - this was back in 1997, I wasn't on the net back then. Back then and even now - the romance is basically the heterosexual female fantasy - the young unpopular girl meets the older very attractive guy - who saves her or helps her numerous times, but disappears shortly after, he takes an interest in her. That's in numerous teen romance novels -as we women know all to well. It's actually the counter to the unpopular/nerdy boy fantasy of the hot older gal taking an interest in him. Whether she be a teacher or a cheerleader - which to be fair, Buffy did try to do with Xander (with both Cordelia and the teacher in Teacher's Pet). To state that Buffy/Angel did this popular female romantic trope first and subverted it first - and Meyer merely copied it, is well ignoring the existing trope that pre-dates Whedon et al by about 100 years. All you need do is read Richardson's Clarissa to know that someone beat Whedon to the punch regarding the horrors of such a relationship, or Bram Stoker's Dracula or various other gothic horror tales. Or for that matter, William Shakespeare and Marvel comics, plus a whole slew of daytime soap operas.
Meyer is as innovative as Whedon in her take on the old established trope. Her twists are just different ones...from the essays I've read and the plot breakdowns, Meyer focuses on female fears that would not occur to many men - the fear of sexual penetration, the violence of sex, the violent reprecussions of sex which can be child-birth...the desire to be free and physically powerful like a man. Edward represents freedom to Bella, a freedom she yearns for...power. Whedon's take on the trope is in some respects a decidedly male one, he skims over many of the female desires and fears - by making Buffy physically powerful or Angel's equal in power. By doing that (which I admittedly loved) he jumps over the reason the fantasy often exists and changes it completely - Buffy doesn't yearn for Angel's power, she already has it. She doesn't yearn for his freedom, she has it. We discuss gender a lot, but to ignore the differences and the societal view of gender...I don't think we can. When it comes to how our society and world view gender? Meyer's Twilight in some respects is the reality, while Whedon's Buffy is the fantasy.
I may not like Meyer's execution and may find her metaphor's sloppy or difficult to digest, but I am also not a small 12 year old girl.
At any rate, I feel the need to apologize to the Twilight fans out there for any posts that I've written that disparages what they love. While it is okay to be critical...I think a modicum of respect is also required. That goes for any rants, disparaging remarks, etc that I've made regarding Whedon and Buffy comics as well. There's something to be said for not reading, watching and/or discussing things you do not like. ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-24 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-24 09:54 pm (UTC)Though she let her imagination run, I don't think Meyer would be at all comfortable writing about a free-thinking world like Joss' universe.
True. But it bears keeping in mind that Meyer's wasn't raised in the free-thinking privileged world Whedon was. It is a lot easier to write a free-thinking universe when you are born in a family of privilege, are male, white, given the best education money can afford, and a job at a top rated tv show. Heck Whedon got the screenplay he wrote sold at 19/20 years of age. He got a job on Roseanne. While Meyer's was raised in Utah in the Mormon religion and to be a wife and mother.
She worked her way through many a writers group and sent her novels to many publishers...before someone picked it up.
I can't say her Twilight novel is good (actually I found it to be unreadable) but to be fair, I can't say Whedon's Buffy film (or the original teleplay having read it) is all that much better. Both feel like a 19 year old wrote it. The difference is Whedon was actually 19 when he wrote his, Meyers was merely writing for the teen audience.