In Which My Neuroses, Bred By Meta-Commentary And Cultural Relativism, Become Evident

[lowkey]

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.

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!

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.

ANYWAYS, I didn't know anything about this internet debate until 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.

Comments

[mako_lies]

I read bits and pieces of the Doyle piece when it first came out... I read the part about fandom, like you did, and was like... huh. Because about that she makes an interesting point.

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).

[lowkey]

In her reply on Threat Quality, Doyle defined fandom:

“Fandom” says “this is awesome, we’re awesome because we like things that are awesome, let’s have arguments with each other about which parts are the most awesome, or analyze facets of the awesome thing with the tacit agreement that we’re all here because it’s awesome. Anyone who doesn’t think it’s awesome is a hater and we hate them and fuck them, because you would have to be stupid to not understand that this is awesome.” That’s “fandom.”

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.

[mako_lies]

I really enjoy having meaningful fannish conversations, I enjoy analyzing the things I like, even if what I find isn't stellar. I mean, I adore the Final Fantasy series, but I have some serious issues with how they deal with gender and race.

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.

imadra_blue wrote a piece about the portrayal of female characters in the FF series, and yeah, it's pretty disappointing. I mean, look how poorly they handled Rinoa? And Quistis? Sometimes, they do really well. XIII has a lot of well-characterized and independent female characters. But a lot of the time... they miss.

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?)

[lowkey]

Okay, so I have REAL LIFE THINGS I need to do, but I've read half way through imadra_blue's piece, and hot damn, she's saying everything I've ever felt. I mean, I'm trying really damn hard to imagine Rinoa as the hero of VIII, but the game's plot is making that very, very difficult.

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.