Three unpopular fannish opinions

[dolorosa_12]

I seem to be on a bit of a blogging roll right now, so here's a post about three things I've been musing about in relation to various things I've been reading in recent times.

1. I still find Buffy empowering, in spite of everything

Let's get this out of the way. Buffy fails on numerous occasions in matters of race, sexuality and even the feminism which its creator, Joss Whedon, claims. I personally think its storytelling is excellent, but I know numerous people who find it deeply problematic and even hurtful, with good reason. It is, to me, an example of a flawed story that nonetheless never fails to speak to me, and I know that I have in the past excused or failed to recognise its flaws due to ignorance.

Chief among these flaws is one that feminists often raise in relation to all of Whedon's work: he ostensibly writes stories about 'empowered' women whose source of empowerment is overcoming some kind of trauma, usually a literal or metaphorical rape.

And yet, for me, as a teenager and young woman, I found that particular story, especially as it was told in Buffy, extremely empowering. Despite having a relatively calm adolescence, with nothing worse than low-level bullying, I always felt broken (and indeed in my early 20s actually sought out situations that would give me an excuse for this brokenness). As such, the idea that out of brokenness came strength was incredibly empowering for me. I know now that we need stories about women whose strength is not simply an act of revenge, a side-effect of abuse or destruction, but back then, Buffy's was a story I needed to be told.*

2. Leave Twihards alone!
On a related note, I think the bashing of Twilight fans needs to stop. This is not because I think Twilight is a wonderful story, or that it's a terrible story but this somehow doesn't matter because it's 'light, fluffy entertainment' (nothing is 'just a story', and nothing is above criticism). It's because if I had been twelve, or fourteen or even eighteen when Twilight came out, hell, I would've been a fan too, and I think those of us who were introverted and 'only ever fell in love with fictional men' need to show a bit more empathy and compassion.

You know how I said I felt 'broken' as a teenager? Well, I used to think the solution to that 'brokenness' was an all-consuming, all-sacrificing, transformative love. I read just the kinds of books to feed my rescue fantasy, and I thought if the right guy (always someone 'dangerous' and 'damaged') would walk through the door, all my troubles and angst would be over. As a fifteen-year-old girl, it's a powerful idea: that true love is obsessive and dramatic and will cause you to change completely, and Twilight simply taps into that idea. As a teenager I was reading Cecilia Dart-Thornton and Sara Douglass and Juliet Marillier and a whole host of other female romantic fantasy writers who fell under the umbrella of 'Celtic-inflected historical fantasy', and who am I to say that they were any less damaging to my ideas about romance and relationships than Twilight?

I'm not saying that we should throw our hands in the air and give up criticising Twilight. No, we should criticise it until Stephenie Meyer is no more than a distant spot on the horizon of the YA corpus. But we should stop thinking of Twilight fandom as a new phenomenon and recognise that many of us read equally problematic books as teenagers, and gained equally disturbing beliefs about relationships because of them.

3. Hufflepuff and proud
I'm a self-sorted Hufflepuff, and actually only want to join Pottermore so that I can have this sort of officially confirmed. (I'm sad, I know, I know.) And while I know I'm overinvesting, it does make me sad (even though I know it's all done in humour), when people like The Last Muggle persistently bash my beloved house and the qualities that it epitomises.

This criticism does have some validity. After all, loyalty - the key Hufflepuff trait - does have a dark side, as one may be blindly loyal and supportive where he or she should be constructively critical or antagonistic. But I think that kindness, compassion, hard work, fairness and loyalty are unjustly underrated, and that these are qualities (kindness in particular) that we ought to demonstrate, not mock or belittle.

In any case, it seems to me that the whole Potter series is, in fact, arguing for a less rigid separation into houses, since people don't tend to only embody the traits of one House, but rather possess them all in varying proportions. Ultimately it takes representatives of all Houses, and the utilisation of the myriad traits they embody, to destroy the Horcruxes, not Gryffindor bravery alone. We are composite beings.

But then that's probably just me being earnest like the Hufflepuff I am.

_________________________
*Also, I rewatched Season 6 - not a fan favourite - at a time in my life when I really needed it, and I seem to be alone among fans in thinking that it was a well-executed season whose story perfectly matched where the characters were in their lives. (I do recognise, however, that many queer fans found the Willow/Tara storyline distressing and a betrayal, and, though they don't need my validation, I think they have a valid point.)

Comments

[evewithanapple.livejournal.com]

Juliet Marillier and a whole host of other female romantic fantasy writers who fell under the umbrella of 'Celtic-inflected historical fantasy', and who am I to say that they were any less damaging to my ideas about romance and relationships than Twilight?

HDU BRAN/LIADAN FOREVAH!!11!!

(I always find the mention of Sara Douglass inexplicably hilarious, becuase when I was a tweener and just getting into the adult fantasy/sci-fi section, her blurb was on every single book. So whenever I saw her recommending something, I'd be like "OH LOOK, SARA DOUGLASS LIKES IT.")

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

HDU BRAN/LIADAN FOREVAH!!11!!

Oh, I know. I hang my head in shame at how much I used to love Liadan as a character, how I didn't notice the awfulness of her treatment of Niamh, and how EPIC and REDEMPTIVE I thought the love between her and Bran was.

Oh, Sara Douglass books, the historical fantasy where feminism died a brutalised, painful death. Basically, she got massively annoyed when her fans preferred the (self-sacrificing, abused) secondary heroine to her (less self-sacrificing, less abused) main heroine, and spent every other book punishing them by having every central, supposedly romantic relationship be abusive. She never presented this as healthy, but she didn't exactly condemn it either.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Oh, also, although the Buffy section of this post was sparked by some of the things you've been saying in your liveblogging on Tumblr, I don't disagree with anything you've said at all. Rather, your posts caused me to think about my early days of Buffy fandom. I tend to constantly reflect on the texts I like and liked, and analyse my reasons for liking them, and that's all this is.

[cykotyks.livejournal.com]

The Hufflepuff hate makes me sad ;A; I get that in-canon, there's a lot of inter-house competition and whatever, but the fans seem to see all of the bad and none of the good.

Then again, some of the (technically) canon stuff regarding the houses and everything is...disconcerting. I came across a Pottermore spoiler for those sorted into Ravenclaw, and the prefect was going on and on about how Ravenclaws were all accepting, especially of the eccentric and whatever, and then proceeds to put down Hufflepuff house :|

I'm probably a Hufflepuff myself, though I definitely share traits with the other houses, and not all the Hufflepuff traits fit me. And that's how it is for most people, in canon and out. In the books, all we know about the other houses is from Harry's point of view, which is clouded by other people's opinions because he's still just a kid, and now all the readers are taking Harry's views as fact without bothering to form their own opinions (other than "their" house is moar better - which, btw, I'm getting a kick out of the identity crisis secrets on f!s thanks to Pottermore).

I don't know. I'm just here to say I hear ya.

[crazedturkey.livejournal.com]

See I think that's really funny too because you get the really strong impression from the books that Ravenclaw aren't at all 'all-accepting' and are in fact quite snobby about the intelligence requirement! Witness the way they speak to Hermione for example...

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Exactly! And they're so mean to Luna, too. People seem to be interpreting the presence of Luna in Ravenclaw as an example of that House being really accepting of eccentricity, when in fact (if I recall correctly), the other Ravenclaws tend to treat her quite scornfully.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly! People are a mix. I actually think that the books can be read, to a certain extent (only up to a point) as a critique of the notion that you can put people into neatly-defined little boxes.

I've basically been away from the internet for a month, so I've been scrolling past f!s in a desperate attempt to catch up, but if there are Pottermore secrets, I might have to go back and have a look. Is it only this week, or further back?

[cykotyks.livejournal.com]

They've been scattered here and there since the sign-up window for beta-testing Pottermore was opened (so not too long? But my sense of time is a little messed up so idk). technophile has been lumping HP secrets down at the bottom, so they should be easy to find.

[isigfethera.livejournal.com]

Yes- I feel bad about the Twi-hard bashing too. Not that I think the books are good, but I remember having a massive crush on Spike from Buffy and he was not exactly a positive character nor did they have a healthy relationship. Also, I think it is also possible to separate fantasy from reality- much as I liked the fictional bad boys, all those damaged heroes, I was able to realise at some point that they would probably not work out that well in real life. But then again, now that I am older I do find relationships I would have loved as a teenager a lot harder to read, I guess that fantasy and reality do relate to each other on some levels.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I, like you (and just about every shy geeky teenage girl I know) had a crush on Spike. It seems to be some sort of rite of passage.

The difference between the Spike/Buffy relationship and that of, say, Edward and Bella, though, is that Spike and Buffy's relationship is criticised explicitly within the show (by the characters themselves, in fact) as being extremely unhealthy, whereas Edward and Bella's is portrayed as being epic and oh so romantic.

I think as a shy, inexperienced teenager one of the most powerful and pervasive ideas is that relationships are somehow redemptive and transformative. In most cases, they aren't, or at least not in the way they're depicted in fiction. Oh, sure, relationships change you, but they very rarely redeem you, as that kind of change usually needs to be sparked from within and and not by external forces.

But I have a sort of protective attitude towards Twilight fans because it's pretty obvious with my temperament and reading tastes, I would've been one myself.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I will always love Buffy, even though the last couple of seasons drove me crazy with their extended storylines. It was much more enjoyable for me when there was a bridging storyline that was supported by actual, self-contained episodes along the way. I've always been a fan of flawed characters, so I predictably like the fact that all of the characters are flawed in their own way.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I really dislike Season 7. Only one episode there ('Conversations With Dead People') is up there with earlier seasons' episodes in terms of quality, and I hated the resolution and ending.

I'll have to disagree with you about Season 6, though. It may be that it just came along at the right time in my life. I rewatched it when I was deep in the middle of an angsty quarter-life crisis, so I really identified with the Scoobie Gang's struggles in that season and found it really empowering.

[catpuccino.livejournal.com]

Oh books and the way they influence how you think about relationships...
I was talking to someone tonight about Pride and Prejudice and how really Darcy and Elizabeth are just all kinds of fucked up. He's rude to her, then suddenly falls violently in love with her and she's grossed out, then decides he's better than the other losers around her. I mean yes, comparatively better than Wickham (who goes around ruining the reputations of young girls) and more backbone than Bingley, but I'm sure Lizzie could have done better. Or just ended up on her own!
I know, it was the times too. She did well for herself finding such a rich man with a great house. Ugh.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

See Jane Austen (and also the Brontë sisters) can be blamed for a lot of later romance literature (whether aimed at YA readers or not), who I felt simply misinterpreted what they were saying.

Wuthering Heights, for example, is not an oh so romantic story of how a damaged man was transformed by the power of love. Heathcliff and Cathy are equally messed up, and their love is destructive of all around them. They're more like Greek gods - remote and inhuman and inhumane - and I think that's what Emily Brontë intended. But this went over the heads of Stephenie Meyer and her ilk.

I think if we stopped interpreting Austen's novels as romance or chick lit, and viewed them as comedy primarily we'd be saved a whole lot of pain...

[catpuccino.livejournal.com]

Yeah I never got the romance of Wuthering Heights. Other people rave and I felt... a bit horrified at how badly it all went. It just shouldn't be that hard.

But then at the same time, it makes you think that love should be this all consuming whirlwind.

I also think it's interesting how people say "how could someone who lived such a repressed, sheltered life write with such insight/passion?" and I think it's because she lived this life so uninfluenced by external things that she could write something like this. It comes from the depths of herself and her desires, not any basis in reality.

And you're right, the romance of it, transforming someone else, making them into something amazing and worthy of loving, just by loving them. I know part of me would secretly love to think that I could have that kind of power. But then it'd be scary too, to have that much power over someone else. When you barely feel like you can deal with just yourself.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I knew I had linked to something along these lines somewhere else. Found it! (http://dolorosa.tumblr.com/post/5242575692/we-tell-and-re-tell-the-beauty-and-the-beast) It's a quote about how women are constantly retold the story of Beauty and the Beast as if it is a wonderful and romantic thing.

[lariren-shadow.livejournal.com]

I always liked Buffy and can see where the critiques come from (though I've never actually heard any of them outright). I feel like Charmed, another show I liked at the time, would recieve the same backlash. In fact most tv strong female characters could be said have that flaw.

I was 18 when Twilight came out. The book not the movie. I read it before it was popular, found it entertaining and could have sworn that at the end Bella was turned into a vampire at prom. That was how my brain took the ending. I told my coworkers that it was going to be popular because you get very emotional reading it and its very escapist and fluffy. I was right. I think Twihards are interesting because they are so passionate about this and half the time it seems like they are reacting to the hatred. I know the answer is probably most aren't but it still stands that they are more vocal about their love and how much better it is based off of what people hate rather than their like at times.

There are also degrees of broken and, well, I know I'm broken for a lot of reasons but I'm working on that.

I hate any form of House bashing and this is coming from a slightly reluctant to admit Gryffindor. I never really think I'm that brave but I also have the bad qualities of Gryffindors of being stubborn and impulsive and thinking I need to be the leader. Hufflepuff presents a problem in the series as the two very promonate examples are Cedric Diggory and Ernie MacMillian. Both are very different characters and I kind of like Ernie better. He makes Hufflepuff so much more like the other Houses with his prejudices and his actions. Sure he's loyal but he also has a backbone and does things.

I also keep forgetting Tonks was a Hufflepuff but that's from the Lexicon.

I also hate the assumptions that Slytherin means evil or even goth or dark. This might also be because I think Toph is an excellent example of a Slytherin because she's cunning and ambicious but not only uses her skills for herself but also for what she believes is the best option (I also think Aang is a Hufflepuff).

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I never watched Charmed, but from what I know of it, I think what you say is correct. I wish it could be otherwise. We've come a long way in terms of representation of female heroism, but we have a way to go yet. It still seems to me that male characters become heroes because they have some innate talent or skills, whereas female characters become heroes because they endured and survived some kind of trauma.

See, I think Twilight is escapist, but not fluffy, if you actually read what is being said. I agree with the criticism that it romanticises abuse, and I think this aspect needs to be criticised and highlighted. What I don't agree with is taking a superior attitude towards Twihards, because their love for the books is totally understandable, and sneering at them doesn't help anyone.

I'd never thought about assigning ATLA characters to Houses, but now you mention it, Toph is so obviously a Slytherin. I think Katara is definitely a Gryffinpuff, but Sokka presents me with problems. I think he's maybe a combination of Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, but I'm not sure what proportions. Hmm, I could go on thinking about this forever...

[lariren-shadow.livejournal.com]

Or you have a combination of the two with female characters. They have an innate talent but are also broken in some way and have had to survive some trauma. Its like you can't be a strong female character unless your damaged. Personally I think its an easy fall back for back story for the character and we just need someone to say "you know, I'm just going to write this girl without a tragic past" and see what happens.

Its both. Because you get the scenes (in later books) that can only be pure fluff (see the bedroom scene in Eclipse and anything after their marriage in Breaking Dawn) while there is also the escapist side as well. You know, after reading another book series that romanticizes abuse there are parts of Twilight that don't seem so bad in comparision. I also like the idea that Bella is the sexual agressor in their relationship while Edward is screaming about waiting till marriage.

Its kind of fun and there were a bunch of sorting comm apps that made you sort characters from other fandoms into Houses. I just like that Toph is an example of a good Slytherin. Katara is a Gryffinpuff that would probably be put in Gryffindor because she does impulsive things. I always see Sokka as a Ravenclaw mostly because he's all "science is awesome!" I put Ty Lee in Hufflepuff and Zuko I always argue for Gryffindor (with a hint of Slytherin).