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

[lowkey]

I think one of the things I was sorta trying to get across with this post is: I agree with you? (I hope you read that with rising inflection.) I mean, I really feel -- like you do -- that Internet People get too worked up about Internet Things.

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.

[feverbeats]

I guess I'm just reading Doyle's words about fans differently than you. I didn't read it as her saying fans couldn't or shouldn't engage in discussion about their fandom, just that she didn't want to be attacked by fans defending ASOIAF out of hand.

YESSS, someone else who doesn't like TDK! Excellent.

[lowkey]

And you know, that's a really responsible way to read what Doyle is trying to say, and I think I agree with you, in part. But rhetorically, Doyle separated herself from "fandom", and there's a maybe-sorta-tacit assumption that 'true' analytical criticism cannot come from within fandom, i.e. from people unable to brook criticism of their awesome stuff? I don't know. I feel that if I had read ASoIaF, I might be capable of making better calls than this, i.e. evaluating just how fair/unfair Doyle is being (BECAUSE MY ONE INTERNET OPINION MATTERS). But I've heard from a good source that it sucks, and I really don't want to read it.

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.

[feverbeats]

Okay, that's probably true. She's been kind of lousy about fandom as a whole in the past, so that's fair enough. (And yeah, I would not recommend ASOIAF. I'm reading the first one and I want to finish that because I've started, but it's dreadful, both in terms of content and quality.)

I AGREE. I agree so fucking hard. Iron Man was pretty much my perfect superhero movie.

[lowkey]

Well, I guess the icon should have given it away?

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.

[feverbeats]

Haha, that's a good way to think of it. I think the first one was probably better, but I adored the second one just as much. Actual good writing! Lots of feelings!

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\

[lowkey]

That said, I really, really like Loki. But I think everyone does?

And man, I also really liked Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. It just... really breaks my heart, ya know? Like, he was awesome.

[feverbeats]

Haha, yeah, I don't think I know a single person who didn't like Loki. But still!

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.

[nal_rene]

I personally liked the actor they had for Rodey better in the first one than the second one.

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*