but there are moments when the show itself subverts that because she is just a human

In Regards to Hate: On Victuuri

I don’t know what suddenly happened again but there’s a shitton of hate for Victuuri/Viktuuri(/etc) in the tags lately. People are welcome to feel however they want for a particular ship, but I just wanted to give my two cents by tackling the common complaints I’ve seen. I’ll start from the beginning so I’ll be addressing basically all the arguments against this ship I’ve seen so far. I’ve tried to maintain some sort of order for these, but honestly I just winged it at some point.  A lot of these arguments are also heavily character-based, so keep in mind that I’ll be deconstructing several scenes as well as character motivations as I go.  (As a note, this assumes you’ve seen the whole show. Also, I’m only using canon evidence from the show itself.)

This is like an informal follow-up to my super old post but also not really.

No I’m not avoiding work why would you say that.

WARNING: This is a massive post/wall of text. Grab popcorn.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

You mean 'monster carry'. A trope found in many horror films. We even have the hero Finn running across a large space, screaming out her name when he gets there too late. Talk about a romantic trope. Another moment where your bais really shows so loud and clear in your 'interpretation' of a very basic film imagery.

Actually, I will give you a quick round of applause for your knowledge on this one. Break it down for me, Van Der Beek

Originally posted by heckyeahreactiongifs

But in all seriousness, I do think this scene is in fact evoking a monster movie - to a certain extent. Of course, I think people who stop here with this interpretation are also ignoring fairy tale imagery and the subversion of the male/female dynamic in that “monster carry” (which actually doesn’t exist in and of itself by name, from what I could find, by the way) and “damsel in distress” that Rey accomplishes later on, but let’s examine closely shall we?

So the bridal carry is a bridal carry… is a bridal carry, no matter how you slice it. Whether monster or man does it, it is still called the same, as I understand it. Now, it is important to note that USUALLY monsters are shown using the over-the-shoulder carry. Not always, of course, but usually. I think it is significant that in Star Wars - of all things - we are shown a villain who chooses to use this particular bridal carry, in place of all other potential methods (over-the-shoulder, passing Rey off to troopers like Poe, or simply skipping the scene altogether and jumping straight to an interrogation), and that this scene is shown in four different shots, from four different perspectives - and that the location is a lush, green forest - evocative of Sleeping Beauty and Little Red Riding Hood. While the “monster carry” as you called it, might be shown to evoke that imagery of monster movies to an extent, there can be layers to the presentation which allow the trope to be used in a multitude of ways - and not just a throwback to any one genre or imagery… And the length (around 25 seconds or so?) and weight/pacing of the scene evokes a strange pause in the movie that leads me to believe it is more than monster movie throwback. Pauses and breaks in the pace of films are significant, and force the viewer to switch gears and place special importance on certain scenes - and much like a lot of other scenes between our heroine and Kylo, there is a distinct PAUSE in the Takodana forest scene and the bridal carry itself.

Keep reading

I feel like GRRM’s initial lack of positive portrayal of female friendships or filial relationships impacts how people read characters like Sansa and Catelyn and the idea of feminine characters having internal flaw/sin to overcome (such a Christian idea) and how despite him trying to subvert the idea of these characters being bad, why he fails is because he doesn’t give us those human moments that inform the the motivations of the characters - especially Sansa. 

He tries to write more positive friendships later with other characters like Arianne, Margaery and even Sansa in the Vale. But this initial misstep of not layering the Catelyn-Sansa dynamic and showing how a woman was hurting and took it out in a way she could under the patriarchal structure - on her husband’s illegitimate child rather than her husband herself - and how a daughter saw how much her mother was hurting and how her siblings ignored it and internalized her behaviour. He could have shown how Sansa bullied Arya because she subconsciously wanted to jerk her away from Jon - to make her mother happier, and it manifested into something else along the way. She’s still flawed, but more humanized this way. But did this happen in the books? No, it didn’t. 

He tries to correct fans for certain perceptions of Catelyn and he does have a point, but he couldn’t translate it as much into his writing because he didn’t let Catelyn to vent her vulnerability to another character she could trust as much. The character could have easily been Sansa, but he didn’t exploit the situation that clearly presented itself. Sansa as a character could have easily been given a background where she grew up in a family where lies were realities and secrets were the elephant in the room because of Ned’s “infidelity” and no one allowed to ask who Jon’s mother was. While it still can be read that way, the author didn’t really try to take it to the next level. The material was all there. 

Yes, she was classist initially and because of the songs she believed beauty/nobility = good, but she was also 11 and a child can’t think that way without being influenced directly if in her environment no one cultivates such behaviour. Exploring a more direct source of that is as important as showing its deconstruction, but we hardly get that. Otherwise it just looks like she represents it, when how can a child of 11 do that? 

What he pulled instead was an Edmund Pevensie (the odd, evil susceptible sibling) on AGOT Sansa with a dash of what C.S. Lewis did to Susan at the end of the TCoN series - locking only her out of Narnia heaven because she liked lipstick and boys. It’s general failure of fantasy writers with their internalized problematic aspects of christianity and sexism otherwise anyway. I will say GRRM tried to subvert it and his original outline was even worse concerning Sansa, but because he’s a man and he’s pretty old too he hasn’t been as successful with this kind of flashback nuance. That’s why when someone points out Sansa’s flaws to me, I think: it’s a given she has flaws because the author never lets us forget in the first book, especially. Pointing them out doesn’t actually needs very little close reading. I’m not ignoring them. What I say is after acknowledging them is the audience fails to read between the lines. 

How is it that in AGOT Catelyn, Septa Mordane, Jeyne and Sansa - all female characters - are the characters who are shown to be restrictive? There’s a trend here showing more about the author than the characters. Of course, he does try to show these characters have more human arcs later, but he’s not fair to them in the first book or in backstories sometimes and first impressions matter and that’s why people think Sansa needs to be punished or tested constantly, while Jaime is getting a redemption arc when he technically threw a child off a tower? Isn’t that worse? But there are reasons it doesn’t translate to the general audience. 

The fact that the author writes Cersei as a misogynistic character because she has internalized all the misogyny the men around her have subjected to makes sense because women are capable of that, but apparently Cersei was also a psychopath all along? The woodswitch tells prophecises her fate in her friend’s presence so she kills her that day and never regrets it? So what is so subversive here? When Jaime and Cersei’s dysfunctional attachment to each other is a product of both of them, why does Jaime come out looking better? Because he has a backstory and a time of innocence that isn’t involved with some psychotic behaviour. So when people don’t accept that women who are more feminine aren’t done as much justice as they could have been done in this book series, they’re denying this trend here. 

It’s Susan being locked out of Narnia heaven because she likes “lipstick and boys”. It’s Eve being punished for the original sin because she is inherently evil. Not as individual characters but as a collective whole for being feminine/courtly characters that then end up with added layers. But the author’s tendency is there because of culture. I mean I get that he might have been making a caricature of courtly “goodness” but there’s a difference in how the male and female characters are approached.  

It’s not the same with what he’s doing with Dany as a hero that becomes a villain story because Dany doesn’t start out looking like a flawed character but a victim of men and while she wears dresses, along the way as she uses her wits and then immense power falls into her hands too quickly, she is associated with war and surrounded by male characters who revere the strength she represents with her dragons and command. It’s one of the reasons she would be a successful antagonist because she didn’t start out evil or as a bad apple. 

They didn’t have to be less flawed but if they were given a motivation that guided their behaviour, GRRM would accomplish what he’s been trying to accomplish much better. If he could do this with Jaime and Theon, why not Sansa? D&D obviously handle it worse, but it clearly shows that a man wrote this in either versions. Only a woman who understands how such family dynamics work could write otherwise. That’s partly why so many Sansa and Catelyn fans argue in their favour because underneath what was written is a history of their voices in such domestic situations going unheard.

Why wouldn’t someone in this family have an issue with their mother being scorned with the presence of an illegitimate child? Place it out of the context of this universe and you realize, while no fault of Jon’s, this kind of lack of nuance in two women behaving this way supposed to mean mostly classism when it could be classism being an after-effect of this shows the lack of being able to encapsulate a woman’s point of view. The ingredients were all there in this situation and they weren’t used right as much as the author wanted to accomplish much of it. Write flawed female characters and deconstruct their problematic behaviour later because anyone can be problematic, but understand where it comes from. Otherwise, people continue to miss the point being made and you lose opportunities to add more to your characters. 

I hope one day someone pulls a Wide Sargasso Sea on this and writes that or rewrites that if they’re up to making another adaptation one day by enhancing the story, not reducing it further. But before that he needs to finish first. Don’t get me wrong. He does a lot of things right in terms of layering of the fantasy genre with plot and politics, but they aren’t immune to other forms of problematics like racism and sexism. It’s just a lot more subtle and says more about the culture he grew up in and the culture we still live in. 

In Defense of Irene Adler

I’ve frequently seen charges of misogyny directed at Steven Moffat for how Irene Adler is depicted in the Sherlock episode A Scandal In Belgravia, as well as the claim that she’s regressed as a character since the Victorian-era canon story A Scandal In Bohemia. They point to her initial appearance in the nude, the magical penis trope (in which a lesbian turns straight when she meets the ‘right’ man), that she has been made a dominatrix, she was working ‘for’ Moriarty, she’s calculating and has selfish as opposed to altruistic motives, and that she is ultimately beaten because she lets her (‘typical female’) emotions get the best of her. They also state that Moffat reduces her to a damsel in distress in the end, who needs Sherlock to save her life.

I’ll be honest: I’ve spent a little over two years loving this character and considering her actions and motives, and so by this point I’m not sure whether I’m looking deeper than people who just dismiss her character for the above reasons, or I’ve devised explanations that let Moffat off the hook for misogyny because I think Irene is such a badass. But let me give my perspectives on each of the above complaints.

Keep reading