thuviaptarth: (no subject)

thuvia ptarth (

thuviaptarth) wrote,
@ 2010-03-22 06:16 pm UTC

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Just when I am ready to quit Legend of the Seeker, because it is pretty but let's face it, it is just not that bright, it goes and casts Keisha Castle-Hughes as God.

So, okay. I'll watch another week.

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

rivkat
2010-03-22 11:57 pm UTC (link)

You know, I was just thinking that the show continues to dig deep into my kinks, albeit with a heavy hand. How is LotS better at consent issues during possession than SPN? Well, okay, I know how, but it's fascinating to me that the show's first explicit mention of non-altered-state-related rape came in the same episode with people being pretty clear that Confessed sex is forced sex, and acknowledging (albeit through a man) that one's feelings towards the resulting children might be complicated.

(Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

no subject

thuviaptarth
2010-03-23 01:27 am UTC (link)

Well, okay, I know how,

Explain it to me, because I don't know how! You are right, and yet I am increasingly skeeved out by the gender politics and I don't know why. It's not the ridiculous clothing because my libido kind of approves of the ridiculous clothing. Maybe it's the contrast between the powerful women, the weird madonna/whore complex (which for once seems to approve thoroughly of both madonnas and whores!), and the way storylines nonetheless tend to end up reinforcing male authority? I was really disturbed by the way the otherwise delightful split Kahlen episode basically made Daddy Zed and Reasonable Man Richard the just arbiters of Kahlen's fate.

Sister Nikki's sadism through masochism should be tailor-made for me and yet it left me almost cold. The entire demi-Catholic-Church mother/sister/nun thing, maybe? Because that is a squick for me.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

no subject

rivkat
2010-03-23 01:55 am UTC (link)

I guess it is the difference between misogyny and sexism?

I agree about the skeevy gender politics of the storylines--for me it was the moment when they're all talking about who in the world could possibly be good enough to be the Seeker if not Richard while Kahlan is holding the fucking Sword of Truth--it never occurs to anyone that a girl might be the one they need. But this is the classic problem of the Hollywood narrative, right? The women are so awesome that it is hard to pay attention to how they end up! And maybe that's okay, because no one else needs to pay attention to that either.

I guess I didn't have as much of a problem with split Kahlan because I thought that Richard at least acknowledged that he was, in fact, killing two women because he liked/needed the one he'd get back more. That is, ConfessorKahlan was, I thought, validated by the narrative in her specific claim, and Richard reinforced that when he clearly distinguished between the consent given by PowerlessKahlan and real Kahlan's consent. You're not wrong! But I can also see a contrast between the more power-sharing dynamic with the traveling four and blatantly abusive male authority presented as such, which is actually getting more blatant--the patriarch in that episode, for example.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

thuviaptarth
2010-03-23 02:20 am UTC (link)

But this is the classic problem of the Hollywood narrative, right? The women are so awesome that it is hard to pay attention to how they end up! And maybe that's okay, because no one else needs to pay attention to that either.

Was it you or

katie_m who made the point that Chuck had a hard time seeing women as human but nevertheless clearly saw them as awesome? You (singular or plural) are right, I think -- I mean, I can get annoyed by that kind of sexism, but I feel like it offers a space for female fantasy that misogyny doesn't tend to. (Although that is gliding over my love for and identification with snarky demon girls, so really, no hard and fast rules.)

Right now I am reading Kate Elliott's Crown of Stars series which is set in a sort of alternate Europe dominated by an alternate Christianity (no Christ and suggesting that the figure who replaced Christ was divine as well as mortal is actually the trendiest heresy of the day) where Godhood has both male and female aspects and the resulting social structure is shifted towards the matriarchical -- although it is significantly more gender-egalitarian than history's. Anyway, one of the things that fascinates me about the world-building is that Elliott has come up with a matriarchy that still enables a lot of the sexual and gender abuses feminists tend to associate with the patriarchy, some of them still disproportionately directed at women, because it's a highly *authoritarian* matriarchy with significant class and rank divisions. And this all comes across as very plausible! And the Legend of the Seeker setup reminds me of it in some ways, because of the way the idealization of female authority as represented by Kahlen conflicts with the essentially coercive and violating power of the confessors, as well as the use of familial metaphor for political and religious authority. Confessor authority is just as brutal as Rahl's men's authority; it just wears that velvet glove.

I'm just not sure the writers are consistently aware of that?

I profoundly loved that both Richard and the show made a point of distinguishing between PowerlessKahlen's consent and real Kahlen's consent! I wish so much SPN were capable of half the self-reflection on consent issues -- something on the order of the vid LD made for you is just impossible for me to imagine coming from the SPN powers-that-be, because what they give with the demon pregnancy they take away with everything else.

What bothered me with splitKahlen was the narrative pattern of the external male authority (in this case Zed and Richard) getting to decide women's fate, specifically because women are too cold when they're intellectual and too weak when they're emotional. And it doesn't help that, within the narrative, this is factually true, because that narrative itself has so many horrible real world relevances for me.

I guess the very purity of motivation that makes the show good escape fodder in some ways limits the escapism for me in others. This is one reason Cara is my favorite, although, honestly, snarky soulless girl learning how to be human, I was always going to be a goner.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

rivkat
2010-03-23 03:31 am UTC (link)

Not me! But I agree with that analysis of Chuck as well.

I think the LotS writers are, perhaps oddly, aware of the power problems without noticing the gender aspects of them. Like, if you think that women and men naturally do different stuff, but coercion works the same on both, then you might get LotS. (Cf. male confessors, inherent evil of--there are some powers with which men cannot be trusted.)

The male authority thing is troublesome because you're right, it's validated by the narrative, but not as specifically male, so my inner 10-year-old doesn't have a problem. The pacifists did have a female leader, but then they would, wouldn't they?

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

millylicious.livejournal.com
2010-03-22 10:46 pm UTC (link)

I think Legend of the Seeker has been doing great things, personally, especially with parental relationships and developping well-rounded, strong female characters that don't define their worth based on other people. It *is* a fantasy show, and it *is* light by moments, but it dares to go all out, be it humor and drama, and that's refreshing. It never claimed to be defined by complex storylines.

Sorry to say, but your comment is sort of condescending towards people who enjoy the show, such as myself ("Your show's pretty, but it's stupid"). Having grown up with a multitude of fantasy (not sci-fi, fantasy) shows, I can easily tell the crap from the good stuff, thanks. If that's not your thing, that's fine, but it's not a good reason to look down on the people who watch it.

(Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

no subject

thuviaptarth.livejournal.com
2010-03-23 01:20 am UTC (link)

I have seen and read plenty of fantasy as well as science fiction. I think the show's dialogue, storylines, and characterizations are painted with far too heavy a hand and it seems simplistic to me.

I have said and am saying nothing about people who perceive complexity I don't in it, or who don't perceive complexity and like the show anyway. I both admire shows other people don't and like shows I don't admire. I don't think this makes me any smarter or any stupider than the people who disagree with me.

You are reading a lot about my opinions of genres and audiences that I never said.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

no subject

millylicious.livejournal.com
2010-03-23 01:25 am UTC (link)

I know what your comment came across as, and it came across as condescending. Weither you intended for it to do so or not doesn't change the end result. You didn't say "I don't see the appeal/don't see what other people are seeing", you said "it is just not that bright". Making a broad judgement call such as this implies that the people who enjoy it or see it as a smart show in its own right are, by extension, "just not that bright".

Last edited 2010-03-23 01:25 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

thuviaptarth.livejournal.com
2010-03-23 01:32 am UTC (link)

I am hugely fond of Supernatural, romance novels, shojo manga about vampirism as subliminated sex, and the works of L.J. Smith. I think most examples of these things are the visual or prose equivalent of Legend of the Seeker in the terms of pretty but not that bright. I don't think that makes *me* stupid.

I'm sorry you're upset I think less of your show than you do, but that is not the same thing of thinking less of *you* for liking it more.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

millylicious.livejournal.com
2010-03-23 01:39 am UTC (link)

I'm not upset that you think less of the show, I think everyone has their own likes and dislikes and the world is a better place that way. This is absolutely not a case of "how dare you not like this show?", and it honestly doesn't have that much to do with Seeker itself.

I'm saying that you should be more careful about the way you express your opinion, because you can hurt and upset people weither or not that is what you intended to do. The phrasing in your post makes it come across as you calling people who think the show is smart "not bright", while explaining that you personally feel the dialogues, storylines and etc are heavy-handed is another thing entirely and a perfectly respectable opinion, if it's what the show comes across as from your perspective. I disagree with it, but it's your right to think so and I would have simply scrolled past without feeling the least bit insulted, which is obviously not what happened here.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

Account name:	Log in with OpenID?
Password:	Forget your password?
	Remember me