solitary_summer | (no subject)

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Music: Сплин, Пластмассовая Жизнь

Entry tags:

russell t davies

(no subject)

I'm not all that comfortable posting this, because while I generally follow the big fandom ---!fail debates, most of the time I'm too scared to offend someone or make a fool of myself to speak up, but between

aviv_b's (now locked) RTD-finds-out-about-homophobia story, and the recent debate about (straight) women writing m/m fiction I have this sort of theory why TW fandom blew up so spectacularly after CoE, and it has a lot to do with this slightly uneasy alliance between gay people and the straight part of slash fandom, since both want the same thing, more gay storylines, and there's strength in numbers, and numbers count when it comes to TV. On the other hand that common interest doesn't mean that gay people (fans as well as those involved in the creation, especially in the age of the internet and fandom becoming increasingly mainstream and public) aren't aware of the more problematic aspects of slash fandom (fetishisation/appropriation), or that straight fandom doesn't tend to forget that for gay people it's also very much a matter of identification and representation, and not just, and that's putting it as politely and generally as possible, of fanish squee. (Cf. the 'But It's not about gay men, it's about female sexuality' argument.)

And for the straight side it all worked rather well ('Yay! Canon slash!'), and I'd hazard a guess that even after Ianto's death the greater part of TW fandom would probably have got over it after a while, if RTD hadn't spoken up about what he thought was problematic about—straight, beecause 'people picking up gay rights as an issue' clearly doesn't refer to gay fans—fandom, and suddenly it wasn't one happy family any longer.

So, yes, the 'hysterical women' comment was sexist and misogynist, everyone can agree on that, but after six months fandom can maybe start to look beyond that, and realise this was also coming from somewhere, namely a gay writer thinking he wasn't just dealing with straight women fetishising homosexuality and making judgements about what gay relationships were supposed to be like, but straight women now explaining homophobia to him. Now clearly the situation was more complex than that, clearly there were gay people as well as straight people who disliked CoE for a wide variety of reasons, but I think this was the main impression that came across, and I doubt anyone involved in TW fandom can honestly say that it was wholly unfounded in reality.

And considering that he stated this very explicitly more than once (here and here and probably elsewhere, too, but I wasn't following media that religiously and only picked up what was generally linked in fandom) I find it a bit worrying how this got swept aside almost unanimously by the straight part of fandom. Admittedly emotions were running high all round, and no one was thinking very clearly at the time, but after half a year maybe it's time to acknowledge that among other things there was also a lot of hurt privilege and entitlement in the post-CoE fallout. Because when straight people are gleefully writing RPF subjecting RTD to homophobia they honestly believe he doesn't know about, and are convinced they're doing it in the name of gay rights and karma I think this is a problem that isn't just limited to one writer, but symptomatic of the wider state of TW fandom.

*breathes* Okay. Now everyone tell me how hard I've failed.

[Obligatory disclaimer: I don't consider myself straight, but I'm also too not-much-of-anything-sexual to feel justified claiming any kind of queer label.

Obligatory disclaimer the second, for those who aren't on my friendslist and don't know me. Yes, I cried. Yes, I cared. Click the tag.]

~~ETA: I'll be at my sister's for the afternoon, so if I'm not replying to comments it's not that I'm ignoring anyone.~~

ETA2: Addendum, sort of.

More ETA, since my brain is slow and some things only untangled themselves in my head replying to the comments. If I wrote that post now, I'd phrase it a bit differently, because even while I thought I was being clear, different issues did in fact get jumbled together. The 'hysterical women' comment— and while we're at it, I was getting curious and looked for the exact source, and now I'm left wondering, was this ever said more publicly than (possibly off the record?) to the AfterElton writer who put it into his editor's note without giving the context or even a full quote? In any case, that comment is one thing, and I'm not going to tell anyone they can't be offended by its sexism, even if personally I can't bring myself to be very outraged, given the context, situation and the fact that we're all human and fuck up occasionally.

OTOH, the two interviews I've linked where he is clearly pissed off about straight people lecturing a gay man about gay rights and homophobia—that's a separate issue and a legitimate concern about what was happening in TW fandom, and something I don't think straight fans should immediately react to with outrage and discard as nothing but hurt vanity. It's an issue that deserves consideration, whether or not someone is willing to forgive killing Ianto or the 'nine hysterical women'.

The one is about male privilege and prejudice, the other very much about straight privilege, as is using the sexism as an excuse to ignore the anger, lumping it all together; and they don't cancel each other out. This is essentially what I should have made clearer from the start. And I'll really shut up now; but on some level I keep naively hoping that attempting to untangle this whole mess might also eventually help a little bit towards making TW fandom a less toxic place again. I know, I know. *sigh*

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Lawson in fact has said what I would say about CoE, but one thing that I do want to comment on is that I don't think RTD"s attitude is OK. Not just because I don't like being called hysterical, but mainly because I hate being called stupid. I happen to have read a lot of poetry, I'm not interested in Supernatural and I don't care about the pretty boys. It was the pomposity that was so awful. But then I know many non fannish types who can't abide the behind the scenes DW and TW shows because they say they find RTD so pompous. He is like that, it's just unpleasant to see how it translates when he attacks the fans.

Another thing that irks me, and this isn't limited to the TW fandom, it's more of a general attitude towards fiction nowadays, is that fiction should be prescriptive. Like, if you're going to depict homophobia, or racism or sexism or whatever, you need to make it very obvious that These Are Bad Things. Like people can't tell the difference between reality and a depiction of reality. Or like bigots are going to see the error of their ways if some tv show tells them they're wrong. I can't stand the pov that it's a writer's job to educate people. If anything, it's sometimes a nice side-effect because when you show diversity, that happens. And TW did. It actually even made a stand against homophobia, what with Ianto's reaction to Clem, which was anything but self-hating and it was heartening to see. More than I can do with my grandma.

And now I'm thinking that it's not 'nowadays', like I said. I read some contemporary reviews of 'Frankenstein' the other day which were pretty much along the same lines - accusing it of being materialistic, of not making it clear that man creating life is A Bad Thing, not to mention being unladylike. We haven't come a long way since, it seems.

And just to finish, because I have to go watch American Idol :P - there's something that strikes me as deeply wrong with the line of thinking that tells you fanfiction is the way to go to educate 'the masses'. Just sayin'.

How are we supposed to take that scene?

That other than in 1965 homophobia is not acceptable any longer in 2009, I would say. Also showing Ianto more comfortable with his sexual identity than in the scene with his sister.

Can't speak for RTD, obviously, but I think it might have gone something like this—Clem smelling Gwen's pregnancy was a fixed plot-point, and then they decided to reuse the idea with Ianto, mostly for the "Oi, it's not 1965 anymore," line, and there's no other way Clem would have known. I don't think it goes a lot deeper than that. And I don't think Gwen and Rhys are tacitly approving anything, either; they're maybe a bit embarrassed and don't know what to say, considering Clem's mental state.

To be perfectly honest, I don't want to go over the discussion about how stupid it was again. If you're really interested, I've written something about the narrative structure of CoE here (http://solitary-summer.livejournal.com/438214.html). Having been on the run (and in Jack's case, blown up and buried in concrete), they had no resources, no plan, no knowledge about the situation except what the got from Lois's lenses, and time was running out fast. Moreover, they'd been watching the footage with all those people standing around the glass cage without any protection whatsoever. Even Jack never saw the 456 before, and all they'd done in 1965 was offer and deliver a cure for a virus that had already mutated naturally. Maybe it simply didn't occur to them. Shit happens and hindsight is 20/20

And team Torchwood has always been a bit of a mess and at least in S1 half of the time was creating the problems they then had to solve, which actually people have been pointing out long before CoE...

I do think he does have a bit more agency than that (embarrassingly long post about their relationship

While that's a very interesting post, I'm not sure it persuades me that Ianto has much in the way of agency, particularly in COE, where he was almost literally reduced to (part of) his sexuality with Clem's comment.

Maybe it's an effect of the, as you put it, yanking him from the bier in Series 2, but the more Jack and Ianto were seen to be together in a sexual sense, the less and less Ianto was his own person. The last flash of it we see, really, is in Adrift, and even then, there are no consequences for that which we see, which gives the impression that it caused no problems between them.

One of the tropes of bisexuality is the invisible bisexual - the person who, no matter who they are in a relationship with, is defined as either straight or gay, not as bisexual. That certainly happens to Ianto. It happens to me in real life too - people assume that because I'm in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex that I'm straight.

Jack fulfills another trope of bisexuality, of course, the one who sleeps with literally anything, sleeps around a lot, and can't commit. The fact that he's from the future where they do that has not exactly helped with the assumptions people make about my bisexuality, however. People have drawn exact parallels - 'so you're like Captain Jack off Doctor Who, you'll sleep with anyone, anytime, anywhere??' Err, no.

So we're now two for two on the negative tropes of bisexuality before COE even started, but it could still have been redeemed if Ianto had come out as bisexual not 'it's just Jack'. If Jack had decided to make a commitment to Ianto (it would have countered the 'sleeps around, sleeps with anything, can't commit' trope). If they had an ending that if not happy, was at least neutral in terms of sexuality and wasn't mired down in issues of commitment and unrequited/unconfessed love. I would have been perfectly satisfied if Ianto had lived and Jack had still left because Ianto wasn't enough to keep him on Earth after killing his grandson. I would have even been happy had they, following this, not been in a relationship again - if Ianto and Jack had both moved on in Series 4.

But I cannot be happy with that death. It was unheroic, cheap, exploitative, and just felt like a decision RTD made far too easily - he's confessed to not killing off the kid in the first draft, but Ianto's death was apparently always on the cards.

And of course RTD's comments were a viciously painful slap in the face, after that.

I completely agree. I hate it when fiction insists on doing. Surprising as it may seem to some people, you can actually have ethics without spelling them out in very large letters all the time.

It actually even made a stand against homophobia, what with Ianto's reaction to Clem, which was anything but self-hating and it was heartening to see.

And yet someone commented a bit further down 'How are we supposed to take that scene? '. Um, d'uh?

I'm sorry for butting in, and I don't want to start an argument or anything, but I just want to contest one point. The 'sleep with anyone, anywhere, any time' is only a negative trope if it's portrayed in a negative way. This is because there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I am 'one of those people' like Jack, who I would characterise more as queer than bisexual, because even now on earth there's more than the gender binary to choose from. And I take issue with the fact that Jack (and by extension myself) being open to sleeping with a large variety of people and remaining unconvinced by monogamy casts a bad light on all bisexuals.

I'm aware of the 'all bisexuals are sluts' trope on tv. I dislike it as much as you do, but that's only because it's usually shown as a bad thing. Other than some hand-slapping by the Doctor, who is a bit of a prude anyway, I don't see where that's happened in TW. Again, not trying to start an argument, just saying that there's more than one way to see things. You don't like being likened to Jack, and it's within your rights to set people straight (hah pun not intended). I, on the other hand, don't mind it at all. Variety is the spice of life.

and even then, there are no consequences for that which we see, which gives the impression that it caused no problems between them.

Maybe it didn't cause any, because Jack knew perfectly well he'd been acting like an idiot and should have told Gwen in the first place.

Ianto is very much his own character in Fragments, and while he didn't have a lot of screen time there, also in Exit Wounds. In the end Ianto simply wasn't a major character until CoE, and besides his work for Torchwood, which clearly was very important to him, a major part of his function was being Jack's love interest and walking Jack through his relationship angst.

'so you're like Captain Jack off Doctor Who, you'll sleep with anyone, anytime, anywhere??' Err, no.

I'm really sorry that this is happening to you, but that's more the hype surrounding the show than the show itself. Jack had all kinds of intimacy and commitment issues, but he wasn't sleeping around while he was with Ianto. Flirting, yes, kissing a couple of people, but not sleeping around. He still loved and grieved over Estelle after all these years, and he was married once.

I do think Ianto did effectively come out as bisexual, he just doesn't use the word. Being in love with Jack is clearly a big enough emotional muddle for him; maybe he hasn't really thought about whether he'll want other men in the future. Maybe Ianto is one of the people for whom it's really all about the people he loves. It happens.

But I cannot be happy with that death. It was unheroic, cheap, exploitative, and just felt like a decision RTD made far too easily - he's confessed to not killing off the kid in the first draft, but Ianto's death was apparently always on the cards.

No one expects you to be happy about Ianto's death, I certainly don't, although I don't think it was cheap, and most definitely not unheroic. But why would you assume the decision was made too easily? And in terms of TV conventions killing children is simply more problematic than killing adult characters.

There's probably not much sense in arguing, but since you commented—the point of this post wasn't saying that it was okay, but to point out where (IMO) he was coming from with these comments, because I think in this case context does matter.

Glad you liked the post; for me, unless it's a symptom of genuine, deep-running bigotry, the occasional rude comment doesn't bother me too much; especially in circumstances like these. It happens, none of us are perfect.

I guess for me the thing is since I'm presuming that most of the original comments in the wake of COE that generated the "hysterical women" comment were presumably on message boards how would he know that they were necessarily coming from women or whether they were straight or not. Wouldn't that be like most things in this debate an assumption? Unless of course these facts were in fact stipulated in which case I stand corrected.

And I take issue with the fact that Jack (and by extension myself) being open to sleeping with a large variety of people and remaining unconvinced by monogamy casts a bad light on all bisexuals.

I'm hardly 'convinced' by monogamy myself, as I proudly identify as poly, albeit I'm currently in a monogamous relationship. However, I have no problems with commitment - polyamoury and commitment are not mutually exclusive!

And while I might be open to sleeping with a large variety of people, I always reserve the right to choose who that will be - I would not ever, even if I were perfectly free to do so, be willing to suspend my right to pick my partners based on my criteria. Sleeping with 'anyone, anywhere, anytime' effectively states that I use no judgement in picking sexual partners and would happily sleep with literally anyone at all who was willing to.

I don't like being likened to that trope, which is now associated with Jack, mainly because I find it very offensive that an inability to commit and a desire to sleep with anyone at all is automatically associated with being bisexual. It's simply not true that all bisexuals are like this, in fact I would say very very few are.

There are a lot of women in TW fandom, there are a lot of women squeeing over JB and GDL snogging at conventions, and there are a lot of women behind the campaign to bring Ianto back, and probability suggests not all of those are gay/bisexual. There are straight TW fans and former TW fans on my flist; presumably they are not the only ones.

aviv_b, who wrote that offensive story self-defined as straight. Call it an educated guess.

thank you for writing this :)
may i link to it?

You've made some really good points here; only, I'm gay -- I've experienced homophobia and still do, nearly every day -- and yet I felt that some of CoE was most definitely verging on homophobic. The "smells queer" comment is the one that sticks out in my head the most, tbh -- it definitely gave off the wrong message as then I had people sniffing me and saying "ew, smells queer" for days afterwards. :-/ The comment from Johnny didn't come across as homophobic to me, just affectionate. And the "and who's the queer?" from Clem wasn't really homophobic, just reflecting the times he came from.

Also, there were people who had watched CoE then explaining to non-watchers "yeah, the gay guy gets killed off and the other kills his grandson" -- which is totally the wrong message, if you ask me. I think that sometimes fandom forgets that people who don't have much to do with LGBT issues or fandom don't actually think "Oh, that's homophobic...that's bad"; they take it as fact that gay characters deserve to be killed. Which isn't what CoE was about. :-(

(Sorry if this is jumbly and rushed -- I've gotta rush to catch a train.)

Of course! :)

You do make some valid points but I think you over generalized and made a few too many assumptions for me to really support the opinion. Especially when it comes to fandom's sexual orientation and the reasons they connected with Ianto Jones and/or Jack and Ianto as a couple.

RTD said it himself, if you create likeable characters and good drama (Though some people will debate the 'good' in good drama when referring to TW COE and after rewatching and just comparing with previous TW canon it really can be debated but caught up in the whirlwind of a 5 night broadcast it was hard to deny it was captivating)then people are going to feel things and he wants them to feel. So I don't think fans having a strong reaction to Ianto's death is something bad. There's a long history of fans and viewers not necessarily a part of the fandom protesting shows cancellations, character death or just stupidity.

The majority of fandom probably 'blew up' after Ianto Jones' death because he's always been a popular character and well, he died. And the outrage probably continued because a highly anticipated Torchwood series was stripped of everything identifiable as Torchwood by the end of the first episode. By the end of the five nights the only thing still Torchwood was Jack's great coat (though the man beneath it was obviously a broken shell of his usual self) and Gwen's life despite the hardships of Torchwood remaining arguably untouched and happy.

I think the gay issue comes up because well, they made it an issue in COE. Every episode there was a mention of it. It's like they didn't have the time to show us that Jack and Ianto were in a relationship and Ianto was having some identity and committment issues so they just told us... a lot. So of course if the show (who in the previous series set a standard of having a rather sexually fluid cast and world views) makes an issue of Ianto being gay it's undoubtedly going to come up that the gay character died.

I imagine a lot of upset and outrage won't settle down until Ianto Jones is brought back or they know for sure about season 4, if it will happen or not, and then how it will play out. You can't honestly say that COE had a lot of closure. Despite not always liking the journey, at the end, I felt Jack's farewell was a good place to stop it but it did leave things sort of emotionally raw for viewers with plenty of loose ends.

Yes, people in the aftermath felt turmoil and lashed out and sure there's probably a group of people who are a bit too forceful and idiotic in their views. But it's hardly the majority and even beneath the accusations they could have some valid points.

nope. i think if you go to the 70s you will find that the reason the women's lib groups separated from the gay rights group was exactly that problem. there rose a very obnoxious misogynistic pro gay male (incorp aspects of the mens movement) that was definitely anti women. There is also the problematic nature of drag to consider.

holy crap. i completely missed this hoo ha. very sad state of affairs. Mind you. i read a article by a media studies professor on fan-fiction years ago and in her interviews a writer (female (slash)) indicated that she was aware of a hypocritical element of homophobia in some writing. However the article, nor the interviewee explored this and since then i haven't found many other references nor discussions. though admittedly i haven't really been looking and my fandom involvement is usually confined to commenting like this.

i rather agree.
I was disappointed with the show because i liked the characters and i wanted to see more of them. It made me terribly sad that they died in the show and it seemed to be moving from the original 'model' attracted me to it. On the whole i find the whole thing, Torchwood and Jack's stories, to be terribly tragic and sad. yes i was hurt when Ianto died, it was because i liked him as character, and i liked him with Jack. I identified with his pain. I'm still missing about Owen too. Those characters had such interesting potential.

I think there is, in fact, a VERY vocal group who are doing just what you state, but I think it's unfair to say the same is "symptomatic of the wider state of TW fandom."

And I don't doubt that the condescension of those TW fans (who insist that RTD is homophobic) rightfully had him, and other fans, seeing red. But, it also, either deliberately or as a consequence of that anger, has been used to dodge the more justifiable complaints about CoE.

An example of this from RTD can be found on page 2 of this afterElton interview with Davies: http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/7/russeltdavies

The (gay male, I assume) interviewer asks about the treatment of the Jack/Ianto relationship in CoE. RTD responds with comments about the sexualization of that relationship, to which the interviewer attaches: "[Editor's note: I wasn't referring to their sexual relationship, but their romantic/emotional one.]"

It says to me that there were and are genuine concerns about CoE that are purposefully (maybe mistakenly, maybe willfully) not being addressed by RTD. And, really, if he doesn't want to address them (for whatever reason), that's his prerogative. But his redirection leaves a lot of fans frustrated. A lot of us feel that he is putting us in the wrong box. And now it feels like all of fandom is making the same mistake. Don't judge "the wider state of TW fandom" on that corner everyone is pointing at. It's loud, but it's still just a corner of fandom.

Edited 2010-01-14 21:28 (UTC)

Your post has been included in a post on Linkspam (http://linkspam.dreamwidth.org/15951.html?format=light)
Our purpose is to provide an archive and record of discussions. We realized our policy is not clear and will be posting a revised version by January 17 which will include the following addendum: ETA: We also consider that any post which is public on the internet is available for linking and discussion. Linkspam is not Metafandom and operates from a different philosophy. /ETA

She also claimed it wasn't a "wishing it would happen" thing - I wanted to go back and ask if she knew what Schadenfreude means (the title of the fic, IIRC) but she'd locked the post by then.

I don't want to derail, but I believe there is an underlying long-running element of misogyny in RTD's work - after all, we are talking about the man who wrote a scene in which a woman is reduced to a face embedded in a paving stone and she's then awarded to her boyfriend, who uses her for blow-jobs. That does not justify writing repellent stories about him, or homophobia, nor does the fact that he a misogynist give anyone the right to claim he's a homophobe, but I did want to point out that "nine hysterical women" was a comment made under stress,but not a comment made in isolation - there's a body of work behind it.

But to a lot of people, the situation was shown as radically different - where they seemed to be in CoE was actually less developed than it had become in season two, I thought, even if the development in season two was subtle hints. Then again, for me pretty much all canon after Adrift suffered from "we should have done this ages ago, oops" syndrome.

Particularly since there was such a strong emphasis on "before Gwen no one had a life outside Torchwood".

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 4