In Which My Neuroses, Bred By Meta-Commentary And Cultural Relativism, Become Evident
So first off, when it comes to Artistic & Fannish Thoughts On The Internet, I really do try to ascribe to Moff's Law. I've internalized said internet law as "I should aim for meaningful and good-spirited engagement with artistic stuff", and even if I don't always live up to that ideal (because, man, sometimes someone is WRONG on the internet), I generally try really hard to be nice. Unsurprisingly, the men* that best adhere to Moff's Law -- the sterling posters over at Threat Quality, which includes the eponymous Moff -- are basically the internet posters I want to be.
Anyways, I was just saying that as a sort of disclaimer. Not that I'm immediately going to abandon it and say "check out these here intarnet opinionzzz." It's just that I really wanted to post about this whole Sady Doyle thing, but I also wanted to make it clear that I really don't have a horse in this race.**
You might ask, what is this whole "Sady Doyle thing"? Well, apparently, Sady Doyle is a journalist/outspoken internet personality, who writes for The Atlantic, on top of running a blog, Tiger Beatdown.
She wrote a piece calling George R.R. Martin out for, among other things, being a sexist prick.
But she, uh, also had some bitting comments for internet fandoms in general:
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
owlmoose's post on the matter alerted me to it, and also to what is apparently the internet retort par excellence, a post by Alyssa Rosenberg over at ThinkProgress.
This thread of the debate is easier for me to follow, because it doesn't rely on intimate knowledge of or strong opinions about A Song of Ice and Fire. Because Rosenberg's main contentions are with how Doyle structured her argument.
BUT THEN ALSO Chris Braak at Threat Quality posted an ambivalent defense of A Song of Ice and Fire, which amounted to "Sady, I think we should be on the same side, but you've sorta definitionally excluded me from being your ally." AND THEN you should check out the comments, because Doyle posted a comment, and Braak responded.
And one more thing to take away from this: when Doyle criticizes internet fandoms, she knows what she's talking about. Take, for instance, her recent piece criticizing gender and race in Moffat's season and a half of Doctor Who***, and the comments it received. I think (?) many of the worst comments have been deleted, but the point stands: internet people suck, and in her piece on ASoIaF, Doyle preemptively called the Internet and Internet fandoms out. But where does that leave people like Rosenberg and Braak, or hell, me -- people who are fans but want to, you know, follow Moff's Law?
Anyways: the long and short of it is -- thanks to this, I learned what MANSPLAINING is.
* I said men because, to the best of my knowledge, the contributors at Threat Quality really are all men.
** Even though a claim to neutrality is still a choice. And also, a slightly ungenerous reader might note that, as a white male, my "neutrality" is a vote for the status quo. But it isn't as if Sady Doyle needs Internet Male #63587 (i.e. me) to come to her rescue; that's completely antithetical to the kind of position she wants to argue. So... I just don't know? I think most everyone involved in this has really valid opinions?
*** For the sake of full disclosure: I'm a white male, and I really like Rory Williams. It's unfortunate that Amy's character development has suffered so that he could become awesome (in my opinion), but also: the season isn't over yet. Case-in-point, there was a good half season of Castle where I felt Rick was basically completely useless, but the show's come a long way since then. Anyways, this is a post for another time.
Anyways, I was just saying that as a sort of disclaimer. Not that I'm immediately going to abandon it and say "check out these here intarnet opinionzzz." It's just that I really wanted to post about this whole Sady Doyle thing, but I also wanted to make it clear that I really don't have a horse in this race.**
You might ask, what is this whole "Sady Doyle thing"? Well, apparently, Sady Doyle is a journalist/outspoken internet personality, who writes for The Atlantic, on top of running a blog, Tiger Beatdown.
She wrote a piece calling George R.R. Martin out for, among other things, being a sexist prick.
George R. R. Martin is creepy. He is creepy because he writes racist shit. He is creepy because he writes sexist shit. He is creepy, primarily, because of his TWENTY THOUSAND MILLION GRATUITOUS RAPE AND/OR MOLESTATION AND/OR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SCENES.I didn't read the whole thing -- which automatically disqualifies me from commenting, really -- because I've not read the series; I really can't add anything meaningful.
But she, uh, also had some bitting comments for internet fandoms in general:
Because here’s how it goes, when you criticize beloved nerd entertainments: You can try to be nuanced. You can try to be thoughtful. You can lay out your arguments in careful, extravagant, obsessive detail. And at the end of the day, here is what the people in the “fandom” are going to take away: You don’t like my toys? I hate you!ANYWAYS, I didn't know anything about this internet debate until
So, get it out of your system now, because, guess what, George R.R. Martin fans? I don’t like your toys. Deal with that. Meditate for a while. Envision a blazing bonfire in a temple, and breathe in its warmth and serenity. Then, imagine me dumping all your comic books and action figures and first-edition hardback Song of Ice and Fire novels INTO the bonfire, and cackling wildly.
owlmoose's post on the matter alerted me to it, and also to what is apparently the internet retort par excellence, a post by Alyssa Rosenberg over at ThinkProgress.This thread of the debate is easier for me to follow, because it doesn't rely on intimate knowledge of or strong opinions about A Song of Ice and Fire. Because Rosenberg's main contentions are with how Doyle structured her argument.
BUT THEN ALSO Chris Braak at Threat Quality posted an ambivalent defense of A Song of Ice and Fire, which amounted to "Sady, I think we should be on the same side, but you've sorta definitionally excluded me from being your ally." AND THEN you should check out the comments, because Doyle posted a comment, and Braak responded.
And one more thing to take away from this: when Doyle criticizes internet fandoms, she knows what she's talking about. Take, for instance, her recent piece criticizing gender and race in Moffat's season and a half of Doctor Who***, and the comments it received. I think (?) many of the worst comments have been deleted, but the point stands: internet people suck, and in her piece on ASoIaF, Doyle preemptively called the Internet and Internet fandoms out. But where does that leave people like Rosenberg and Braak, or hell, me -- people who are fans but want to, you know, follow Moff's Law?
Anyways: the long and short of it is -- thanks to this, I learned what MANSPLAINING is.
* I said men because, to the best of my knowledge, the contributors at Threat Quality really are all men.
** Even though a claim to neutrality is still a choice. And also, a slightly ungenerous reader might note that, as a white male, my "neutrality" is a vote for the status quo. But it isn't as if Sady Doyle needs Internet Male #63587 (i.e. me) to come to her rescue; that's completely antithetical to the kind of position she wants to argue. So... I just don't know? I think most everyone involved in this has really valid opinions?
*** For the sake of full disclosure: I'm a white male, and I really like Rory Williams. It's unfortunate that Amy's character development has suffered so that he could become awesome (in my opinion), but also: the season isn't over yet. Case-in-point, there was a good half season of Castle where I felt Rick was basically completely useless, but the show's come a long way since then. Anyways, this is a post for another time.
no subject
Like, I know lots of people who will defend their fandoms despite flaws. And I mean, I guess I get that? But I mean, to not acknowledge the flaws at all... (Not really talking about ASoIaF, because I've not read it, either... So I really can't speak to it). I mean, some stuff is personal opinion, but some of it...
Someone who tries to claim Fang deals with EVERYTHING PERFECT AND HEALTHY? Because they love Fang? I can't get behind that. Because she doesn't and that's not bashing her character, but I guess some people can't appreciate the flaws in something?
I don't know. I may have just horribly derailed myself. Not sure what I'm getting at anymore, coherency is not my strong suit right this second. (There's been no coffee in my life and I don't feel good, so).
no subject
And, yeah, that's... half right? Because the whole reason I write fan fiction and even spend the time talking about these things is that I think they're awesome, and because when I talk about them, I feel awesome, too. But the big difference between myself and Doyle is: we have different operative definitions of "awesome." Doyle calls out the the unintellectual, emotional "squeee" aspect that's really at the heart/is the heart of fandom. And dude, when Rory William's does that thing with the Cybermen that one time, I'm not thinking about how how terrible it is that Amy has been demoted to "passive participant" in Doctor Who. I'm feeling that Rory is righting a wrong in the most kickass way possible.
But there's another part of fandom -- the intellectual/mind part, that steps back from this emotional investment and can say, there are serious problems with how gender and race are depicted in X media, or Y media, or Z media. Granted, Doyle's experience hasn't set her up for a favorable impression; the sort of people to leave comments on internet posts are mostly motivated by emotion, not thought, and they lash out with ad hominem attacks. But Doyle didn't set herself up for success, either: like Braak says, she intentionally framed her argument in emotional terms, and there's a word for that: trolling.
But that doesn't mean we can't have meaningful conversations about fannish things. That includes talking about how completely screwed up a character is, and admiring her for her strength and calling her out for/empathetically understanding her weaknesses. And this is just a thought, but maybe we should have a similar modus operandi for discussing authors.
no subject
Does that mean I can't enjoy the series? No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean I should ignore the fact that they handle some things in ways I disagree with.
Do I still like the series? Yes. Do I acknowledge it has flaws? Yes.
(And I could get into the race thing, but, ah, I think it's pretty self-explanatory?)
no subject
Yes, there are absolutely really terrible problems with how women are portrayed in FF games.
That said, I'm playing through X-2 right now, and I'm really happy that Yuna is getting to sorta be the women she wants to be? I mean, this second half is her story, and I think that that makes an excellent second act to the first game, which was Tidus' story.
Anyways, more thoughts on this later, when REAL LIFE has left me alone for a moment.
no subject
Oh, I don't know. Maybe I'm biased because I think ASOIAF is objectively a pile of shit. That's also possible. Actually, no, I think the problem is that the "half-hearted defense" article is missing some really important points that, like how the rape scenes are treated in the book, and that's making me angry.
I said men because, to the best of my knowledge, they really are all men.
. . . Clearly I've been discussing stuff with the wrong men. Usually when I try to explain to other dudes that their toys (invariably with The Dark Knight) are flawed, mostly they throw fits.
no subject
Bbbbbuuuuuuut I also think that we can have Intellectual, Meaningful Talks about what some might be considered Nerdy, Artless Things. I say that, not trying to imply that you disagree with that sentiment. But I think the point of the Threat Quality piece was, rape and ASoIaF's depiction of women aside*: it's easy for someone who defines themselves as "a fan who wants to critically engage with their fandom" to feel excluded by the argumentative stance Doyle takes.
But also: I really don't like The Dark Knight. Maybe we should talk more?
* And I totally understand that when I say "aside", I'm marginalizing the main point of Doyle's post.
no subject
YESSS, someone else who doesn't like TDK! Excellent.
no subject
But yes: A Dark Knight. I will probably lose Internet Prestige in your eyes, but I liked Iron Man much more. It was shorter, for starters.
no subject
I AGREE. I agree so fucking hard. Iron Man was pretty much my perfect superhero movie.
no subject
I read someone responding to criticisms of Iron Man 2, where the commentator pointed out that the second movie is basically the second act of a "band achieves fame" story: Tony Stark is now having to deal with the fallout from his success, while grabbling with his mortality/grabbling with his father's legacy/creating with his own legacy.
So, I didn't like the second one as much, but I appreciate it more in that light. And the first... man, the first movie had so many things going for it. Like, I don't know, character development that made sense. And awesome dialogue. And Tony Stark.
(Thor is second, but... man, one week, much less one day, doesn't make a punk demigod stripped of his powers make a heel face turn into being a nice guy, nor does it make a generally amoral-but-vulnerable second son into an insane villain. Unless, of course, it was one really bad day.)
But A Dark Knight is all brooding and it's really too long and the ending made no sense to me. Also, I'll readily admit that I was really unsettled by the Joker.
no subject
Yyyyeah, I had that problem with Thor as well. Especially the whole "loving Jane is what changed him" thing. Really? Ugh.
There was just way too much in The Dark Knight. They shouldn't have tried doing Two-Face and the Joker in one movie. I though the Joker was good, but he overshadowed everything else. I guess I'm weird for wanting a Batman movie with Batman in it, ahaha. I could go on and on about TDK. /o\
no subject
And man, I also really liked Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. It just... really breaks my heart, ya know? Like, he was awesome.
no subject
Ah, see, I didn't like him, which was probably another reason I didn't love the movie as much as a lot of people did.
no subject
As far as Dark Knight goes, I don't care for the actor who played batman... at all. In fact he is the reason I won't watch those batman movies more than once, but the Joker made my day.
Keith Ledger stayed true to his character. Though I miss the side of joker that you could laugh at. But his entire purpose in life was to get Batman to screw up and mess up morally.
*Shrug*
no subject
The thing is, for all I've criticized her piece and her responses, I do feel Sady Doyle here. Speaking very, very, generally: Nerds -- particularly the stereotypical middle-class white male nerd we tend to think of as the classic sci-fi/fantasy fan -- do tend to feel oppressed for their nerdom, and they do tend to be very bad at acknowledging and examining their own privilege. Which can be an explosive combination when they try to engage with criticism. Fans can get ugly, and they've gotten ugly at her more than once lately. I don't blame her for lashing back.
But that doesn't change the fact that, in many times and places, nerd culture really *is* marginalized. No, nerds aren't going to be winning the Oppression Olympics; they probably shouldn't even enter the race. But that doesn't make their marginalization less real. It seems disingenuous not to acknowledge that. And lately, I've been getting the feeling that Doyle is poking at the nerdrage hornets' nest on purpose, starting at least with the Harry Potter piece (another one that I found somehow reductionist and unsatisfying, even as I was hard-pressed to argue with many of the details). That's been bothering me, too.
no subject
This applies to both fandom, but also -- and please believe, the following aside really does have a point -- academia, where I happen to work. Academia -- and let's take history here, because that's the field I'm intimately familiar with -- has really been a white, middle- to upper-class ball game for a long, long time. And that it's evolved into something more than that is because minorities -- non-whites, women, the poor (and the last isn't really a minority, but you get the point) -- have stood up and spoke Truth to Power.
But to "speak", to effect real change, you really need to have two things going for you, at least in the field of history: evidence, and a voice, i.e. the ability to project your message. If you can increase both, you increase the weight, or the gravity of your message. But let's face it, historians often have just one or the other: we have a really well-researched but boring argument, or we're totally iconoclastic, often at the expense of hard-and-fast evidence. (And that isn't saying that controversial arguments, by default, have no evidence. But it is a tacit admittance that the "archive" we historians draw on is a socially- and historically-constructed conceit that reflects the power dynamics operating in the real world. Boiled down: we don't preserve evidence that tells a story contrary to the Story.)
So what ends up happening is the most influential works are often not that well researched, because they are actually calls for more research. Take Orientalism, for instance. Hella important, with hella alot of problems.
Anyways, what does this have to do with Doyle? I really respect that she, in essence, said "Internet, and ASoIaF fans, there are some serious problems with how these books deal with the issues of gender, and rape, and women. And we need to talk about these this, because I believe that not facing these problems makes all of us a little less human."
Okay, the last part was my own, but you get the point. There's something heroic about the lone gunslinger who walks into town and says "I'm calling you out!"
But the problem with all of this is: this is the Internet, where anyone can tune in and anyone can tune out. And when you construct an argument with vitriolic and found it on the premise that the people you're talking down to are incapable of self-critique, it's like blood in the water, and Really Terrible People come out of the woodwork to "engage" with it. And the more intellectual types -- well, at least me -- get turned off by such theatrics.
Aaaaaannnnndddd yet... if Sady Doyle had worded her argument nicely, and had been forceful but understanding and thoughtful and empathetic, would be talking about her now? Probably not.
This may just be me venting at you... sorry.
Anyway, it was all very interesting. Thank you for putting this up. I am also sighing and cursing you lightly with this same breath, so... yeah.
Very interesting. I don't like when random profanity's are thrown in my direction and supposedly being misogynistic, for liking something I read.
It's like my republican friend when she says, "ALL UNIONS ARE HORRIBLE AND THE GOD DAMN FEMINISTS NEED TO JUST DIE!" No, Chloe, they aren't and don't. They need to tone it back some because they are stepping into the region of unreasonable, but dying? no.
I am a moderate and I don't like conflict. I keep away from conflict as best I can. So my views are going to be pretty similar.
Women are a lot better off now than they have ever been, ever! And I'm happy with that. Racism has decreased in the US by a whole friggin' lot. And I'm happy with that.
But let me tell you something. It is possible to be racist against someone because they are white. It is possible to be sexist against someone who is male. Plain fact! And those who in one breath say, "YOUR RACIST!" or "YOUR SEXIST!" then turn around and in the same breath say, "White people are so privileged and all of them are rich!" or "Men rule the world and are dooschbags!", those people are hypocrites. And I have little tolerance for that because I deal with my father on a daily basis.
And fuck, if all whites are rich bastards then how come I can barely go to college? How come I worry about if my family is going to have to go without power next paycheck?
And Men? Most of them are decent human beings! Like you, lowkey.
Everyone can be a bit racist and sexist. SO DEAL WITH IT!
This may have been very angry sounding... I apologize. This subject upsets me a lot.
Re: This may just be me venting at you... sorry.
This is awesome! Watch it. Or rather... listen to it.