Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2017-06-23 06:58 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2017-06-23 06:58 pm
[ SECRET POST #3824 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3824 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
[BoJack Horseman]
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
[Horizon Zero Dawn]
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09. [WARNING for possible discussion of harassment/sexual assault?]
__________________________________________________
10. [WARNING for discussion of rape]
(Bill Cosby and Keshia Knight Pulliam)
__________________________________________________
11. [WARNING for discussion of harassment/cyberbulling, abortion, child sexual abuse]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #547.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
I agree with the part, for example, that owership language has been used for black people, and if we were talking about anything other than fandom as it exists today, it would be a valid context for the rest of the comment. Problem is, that that language is a part of fandom today. This could be racially charged language, racially charged expressions of fandom, but as this has been the norm for every white penis in fandom since... Some time mid SPN, the idea that people acting this way are doing it because of racism and they need to stop it is utter bullshit.
Outside of that, no, the post seems to be claiming a greater level of ownership of a franchise than other fans based on race - See my comment where I point out the language used - Which is also utter bullshit.
Like breakdown of the post:
1st paragraph: Praises all the things the movie does right - I agree
2nd paragraph: Criticises the types of infanalizing and ownership language people use. Gives examples. Declares that the characters are not theirs - I fel she's taking it too literally. Of course they are not mine, they're not hers either, they're marvels. This is just how fen talk these days.
3rd paragraph: Explains where this language has been used against PoC's - I agree, but I think it's disingenuous to conflate the type of language she is describing with type of language people in fandom havve been using for years on characters of all races. Liek the word Fag is the same if I use it or an american uses it, but historically, when use it it's about cigarettes, not homosexuals. Just like if a white character uses ownership language to T'Challa, it's harmful to him, where as if a fen does it, it has a different context, so all in all, I understand, but I disagree.
4th paragraph: outlines that while black people will share Black Panther with non-blacks - How very kind of them - this movie is still "For black people" its their thing they will share, but non-blacks must remember it is definitely not theirs. - I disagree. It is as much a movie for non-black people as it is for black people. Its as much a movie for comic fans as it is for movie fans - I kinda feel like it's more a movie for comic fans, personally, but that's just my comic snobbery coming through, I know it's not true.
5th Paragraph: Things get VERY weird because while I understand the words, I can think for no mammys or servants. Sidekicks, sure, Sam Wilson is as much Caps side kick as bucky was, but even then I direct you to Luke Cage. I direct you to T'Challa in Civil war. He was no-ones side kick. - I agree that would all be bad. I agree I want a Misty Knight movie. Something dark and Detectivey. I do not agree that black characters are Mammys or Servants. Not in canon or in fandom. Like, that seems like a leap to me, but even if it were true, I do not feel like this would be justification to object to black heroes being treat exactly the same way, using the same language, as white super heroes.
6th Paraghraph: Goes into depth about how whites are not to be head canoned or fan ficed into Wakanda, followed by some truely aweful chracterisation of T'Challa's moviation in allwoing a white characters into Wakanda. Just stunningly bad. Bad enough that now that I type this I wonder is this not a parody? Is this actually some anti-sjw doing a false flag post trying to make black marvel fans look like assholes? I mean, shit, is this exactly what this is and I've been taken in? Holy shit, I think it is. What the hell is wrong with me?
Anyway...
To be honest, and I don't actually want to be a dick here, buy I think you may be the one missing out parts of the post rather than me. Like, yes they do explicitly say that he can be shared by all fans, but they preceded that statment by declairing ownership of him, and followed it by saying that non-blacks don't have the same rights to claim ownership. Like you did correctly call that part between those two statments, but you do seem to have missed the bits on either side.
"It is explicitly talking about how you should feel free to like this thing but don't erase its blackness or decenter its blackness"
One of use is misunderstanding the meaning of the word "Explicitly". Because not anywhere in that post does she talk about erasing or decenter blackness literally nowhere. And you are literally not quoting more of the text. You have quoted none of it. You have paraphrased it through what you seem to be wanting it to be saying, but honestly, I think your filter might be wonky on this. I won't say you're wrong in your interpertation of what they were trying to say, but you are going kinda far away from the words they used, and making some logical leaps to get from what you seem to think the post is saying to the actual post.
As for the "I think this is mostly an incorrect interpretation..." paragraph, I sort of agree, but again I don't think it's a valid comparrison. Like yes, you should like the heroes for who they are, but the thing about fandom is that almost not any of the people who are declared "Smol" or "baby" are actually small or babyish. Like, people who love Junkrat and call him their smol baby are not actually describing junkrat, but it's just the weird woobifying thing fandom does. It's not always mu jam, and its not really realated to the heroes they do it to, but fuck it, who am I to judge? I would never describe x23 as a a little baby girl, for example, but I would say that she is my waifu.
So yes, appreciate the characters as they are is definitly my preference, but if you're going to woobify a character, their RACE should not ever be the thing that defines wheather you do or dont.
Now this argument promises to be much more fun: I think Rorschach might be the closest thing to a hero in watchmen. He's the one unbending character. Didn't do the heroe thing to get a hard-on, or because his mother told him to do it, or because it gave him a chance to kill people. He's veiw or right and wrong was bent, but he stuck to it in a way that only true heroes and true villains do.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-06-24 09:24 pm (UTC)(link)Like.... it may be true that he's the "closest" thing to a hero, in some extremely tortured sense. I don't think that there's anyone I would argue is more of a hero. And it's certainly true that there's some dignity in sticking to a clear set of ethics.
But I think he's still so far away from being a hero that it's inaccurate to call him one. And, more broadly, I think part of the point of Watchmen is a sustained critique of the ideas of power and heroism as they exist in superhero comics, from top to bottom, and Rorschach is as much implicated in that as any other character - Dan's lack of moral clarity, Ozymandias' moral monstrousness and ultimate futility, Comedian's complete callous monstrosity, Doctor Manhattan's detachment from human perspectives, and then you have Rorschach, who is brutal and insane and accomplishes nothing.
Specifically with regards to Rorschach as a character, I think it's important to note, first, that Alan Moore probably would not agree with the idea that consistently sticking to an abstract code of ethics is actually good, and would certainly disagree with the actual code of ethics that Rorschach endorses. Second, I think it's important to point out that Rorschach's code of ethics and his commitment to it are both very closely tied up with the fact that he is, you know, a vicious sociopath with profound emotional issues. Third, I think it's important to note that Rorschach's moral commitment is ultimately as meaningless as Dan's moral acquiescence. So that would be my response to the idea that Rorschach is in any sense the hero of Watchmen.
Please note that I haven't read the book in a couple years, so some of the details might be slightly off, but I think I would stand by all of the broad strokes there.
no subject
I suppose in any other universe rorschach as he's written would be a clear anti-hero, and by the measure of our world he's not very much of a hero at all, but in the context of his own universe he is a hero.
Like batman, if he existed in out world, would be a villian by any stretch, but the nature of the world he is in makes him a heroe.
I agree about his commitment being useless, but isn't that what heroes do? The do the right thing, as they see it, even if it won't achieve anything?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-06-24 09:51 pm (UTC)(link)I agree about his commitment being useless, but isn't that what heroes do? The do the right thing, as they see it, even if it won't achieve anything?
I don't agree with this, and I definitely don't think that Alan Moore agrees with it at all. I think he would point out - and arguably he does point out - that there's actually something kind of horrific about someone consistently sticking to a brutal and evil set of ethics. And there's something kind of horrific about Rorschach in exactly that sense - I mean, he's basically right next door to being a serial killer. So it's an interesting idea, but really not what the book is endorsing, I think.
And of course, Ozymandias follows the same logic in exactly the opposite direction - he tries to act for the greater good so much that he does this profoundly monstrous thing. So both extremes of the scale are, in a sense, equally condemned by Moore - which points to the idea that it's a negation, not an inversion, of the superhero genre.
ManWatchmen rules I need to reread it
no subject
So, if you consider both Ozzy and Rory to be duel villian on each end of the scale, would that mean that the hero is the character who is the least driven? Would that make Manhattan the hero? being the center point to the extremists? It fits, being the only one with super powers in a story that's twisting the SUPER hero genre.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-06-24 10:17 pm (UTC)(link)The one character I haven't really thought through is Laurie, and I don't remember exactly the tone of her ending off the top of my head, so I don't want to make any definitive statement there about that. But in general, I don't think any of the characters in Watchmen succeed in heroic terms.