linaerys regarding the Merlin fandom in response to thingswithwings post on Merlin (linked in entry).This is pretty much a lot of what I wanted to say on the subject after reading
thingswithwings's post, but a.) I am not even in the Merlin fandom and have only watched a little of the show, so authority, see I have none and b.) I'm not terribly objective since I was in comments there and being sane, I'm not going to post on something when my feelings are hurt or blah blah whineycakes.It's more--I'm not sure I have the right to take it personally when I think there was actual escalation involved, and I'm not entirely sure I'm not to blame for getting frustrated with the concept that seemed to be running through the essay and much more specifically in comments regarding a social obligation not to be fannish on source text that's problematic. So, yeah. I'm still reading through it to make sure I didn't misinterpret, but it's still bothering me, because a.) really, no, fans are not now responsible for the creators actions and b.) I'm not comfortable fans themselves be judged by what they are fannish about. I know there are exceptions to this--I can think of several off the top of my head I'd find problematic, like fangirling Nazis, because it's not a good post unless I can Godwin it--but I'm also extremely wary of skating toward your kink is not okay.
Like I said,
linaerys said it far better and more clearly than I can.
So, yeah, I'm hardly on a crusade to tell people what they should and should not be fannish about, and for all I know, I could get bored one night and watch and fall in love with Merlin. But I would love it if my next obsession didn't leave me with the need to go over to
Your Vegas review is one of the reasons I'm wary about the ep (no Teyla and Ronon? That doesn't even make *sense*.).
God, what I wouldn't do if a show didn't skeeve me, or at least made a brave and valiant attempt at it. OTOH, personally, part of the attraction to writing in a fandom (as opposed to watch or read only) is trying to fix some of the problems in it, so I'm wondering curiously if I would write for a show that was that good (watch, God yes, write, that I wonder about).
So agreed on that one. My objection was more the social responsibility aspect of not fanning Merlin (insert show). That part bothers me in the idea of the fan becoming responsible for the source material and the idea of fans being judged by it. It's way too close to the kink issue.
I find it actually awesome that Merlin retells and twists Arthurian legend to an extent that you can't really predict the plots anymore. And it is far better that they chucked out any pretense at "historical accuracy" right away, starting with the tomatoes that get thrown at Merlin, rather than try for it and constantly aggravate viewers by failing.
Edited at 2009-01-06 09:42 am (UTC)
1) Seriously, making any sort of argument that Merlin is too problematic for people to become fannish about while bemoaning the fact that people were drifting away from SGA boggles my mind because having watched both, I'd say they each have gender/race/etc issues and given the sidelining of Teyla and Ronon this year in SGA... Well, let's just say I had a problem finding her Merlin objections believable given she is fannish about SGA.
2) Whenever there is upheaval in a fandom due to loss of new source material or whatever there is inevitably fannish drift. Trying to make it a moral obligation to stick with one fandom because another one has hinky issues becomes an exercise in futility pretty quickly. SO it has been and so it shall be. Better not to piss off the people still in both fandoms rather than try to keep the people who haven't drifted over to it yet from drifting away in general - they'll just go to a different fandom maybe.
I know my issues are not the deep thoughts about social obligation and morality as it affects the world we live in through our magic Tv screen, but I truly felt the rant was more about stopping people from watching Merlin because it would impact SGA than actually having much relevant discussion behind it.
I know my issues are not the deep thoughts about social obligation and morality as it affects the world we live in through our magic Tv screen, but I truly felt the rant was more about stopping people from watching Merlin because it would impact SGA than actually having much relevant discussion behind it.
Oh yeah. I was sympathetic to the leaving-SGA thing, because I hate it when that happens in a fandom I'm in, but I'm not sure going the "this show is immoral so stay in SGA" is quite the way to go about convincing people.
So yeah. Inarticulate comment is inarticulate. :\
So--yeah. That was odd.
I also think that, well. Here I am, a committed feminist, and my current show is SPN. And before that it was SG-1. I'm not less a feminist, or a bad feminist, for enjoying those shows. I respond to the problematic stuff in those shows, definitely, in commentary and fiction; but I resent the hell out of anyone telling me I am trampling on the sisterhood by watching them.
Which is not to say that I have the right to insist that anyone who finds those shows too problematic for those reasons should watch them. Just because I can work with it, via
This, yes. This.
Which is not to say that I have the right to insist that anyone who finds those shows too problematic for those reasons should watch them.
I have so many words of yes here you have no idea. The lemming argument and the not reading the text critically argument drove me up the wall on that, too. I'm just not seeing how it's a good idea to interpret a fan's social conscience by their television viewing habits. Just--no.
On the other hand, as a quondam medievalist, I can state with a fair degree of certainty that historical authenticity and the Arthurian legends haven't spent more than five minutes in the same room with each other since the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth at the very latest. Malory's Camelot was high medieval; Tennyson's was Victorian; T. H. White's was full of mid-twentieth-century anxiety. If the BBC is rolling their own Arthuriana for Merlin rather than going for one of the ready-made versions, they're not the first to do so by a long shot.
†Though I have to admit that after having had noble persecuted peace-and-goodness-loving antipatriarchal magic users more or less take over the fictional landscape in the aftermath of Marian Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon, it's a bit of a relief to finally have some of them being villains again, or at least operating somewhere more in the tattletale-grey range as far as morality goes.
Edited at 2009-01-06 05:12 pm (UTC)
I still have flashbacks to First Knight. And that other one.
I've read a lot of Arthurian legend, and the only consistency I've ever witnessed is usually, his name is Arthur. And in the ones with a strong Romanesque influence, I think they were calling him Arturus or something. Which is why I love King Arthur like whoa. Never the same twice.
It's sad when your friendslist and your favourite authors move on to another fandom you don't particularly like, but telling them how much you hate their new shiny toys is not the way to make them come back to their old fandom.
That does throw me, because the assumption that we aren't thinking critically is just ridiculous. I have to admit, I don't record every single critical thought on every show, and in some, I don't think I've ever even mentioned them in LJ. Because really. I also don't mention how many times a day I brush my teeth, so assuming I am a hater of toothpaste from that is just unreal.
I was shaking my head a bit at the continued misunderstanding. It looked like a complete case of color-blindness to me -- like, I see green and red, so I obv. understand you when you're talking about green on the one hand and red OTOH, but the subsequent commenters can only see green as red, and keep coming back to that. That was frustrating to read, and must have been 100x more frustrating to argue. [Still, your understated snark is delighful.]
*nods* It's just... weird. I mean, my current favourite shows? Are Prison Break and Entourage. Now, iwth the first there are wildly unbelievable plot-lines, torture, truly skeezy characters and a lack of blondes (no, really, it's all brunettes and darker. Any recurring female character apparently cannot be blonde. This fact amuses me for no good reason) and I know that. I know the writers are slightly crack-addled and the show sometimes makes very limited sense, but it has a great sense of tension, an awesome respect for capable, intelligent characters and William Fichtner. It makes me feel fannish and want to write about it.
Entourage, on the other hand, I love reading about and I love watching. Despite the swearing, the high level of racist, homophobic, sexist jokes and language, and the way that the men treat and talk about women as little more than sex objects. (They all occasionally fall for a girl, but about 90% of the women you see in the show are just there for a quick one-night-stand and get no personality/anything else.) And yet, it's a funny, interesting show that I adore. The characters are surprisingly well-rounded and feel realistic, and I love it.
If the show itself -- or particular characters on a show -- have certain attitudes I don't agree with, it doesn't automatically mean that I have a moral obligation not to like it.
Alternatively, just because a show does certain things right doesn't mean I have to like them. I mean, reality TV has to get two thumbs up for showing a range of people (different races, sexuality, personal lifestyle, etc) but I don't personally like it. I'd rather watch something with a script and a plot. And no-one can argue with me that I'm obligated to support *entertainment* I don't personally enjoy.
Which is, y'know, a long-winded way of saying: each to their own, dude.
This is my short WHEE for your comments. How is everyone able to express perfectly what I spent five comments saying over there? Gah.