![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakThe above was a quote from Fred of AtS fame, but what really got me thinking on this was a Farscape debate. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
astrogirl2 made some excellent points about TalynJohn's body count being actually higher than MoyaJohn's thanks to the Scarran Dreadnought here, which led searose & self to speculation about the nature of the Ancients (and TJohn's complete trust as opposed to MJohn's attitude later towards Einstein).
It occurred to me that the - justified - mistrust in seemingly benevolent, superior mentor figures is something relatively new (correct me if I'm wrong). As a friend of mine put it, would Arthur have distrusted Merlin? Frodo have distrusted Gandalf? Would Luke have distrusted Obi-Wan? (Answer: no, but he should have.*g*) On the other hand, within the last decade or so, we've got the Vorlons on Babylon 5, the forcers of order as opposed to the Shadows as forces of chaos, and Kosh I definitely has the Merlin position towards Sheridan's Arthur. Despite some early warning signals (such as the Vorlon's willingness to let Delenn be interrogated by Sebastian, aka Jack the Ripper, or their threatened retaliation in the pilot), the show's heroes and the audience are lulled into thinking of the Vorlons as trustworthy, even angelic, superior forces. This includes, interesting for Farscape fans, the way the parent card is played - Kosh appears to both G'kar and Sheridan as their respective fathers. When the first doubt as to the nature of the Vorlons is voiced ("if you see a Vorlon, you see exactly what you are meant to see"), it's by agents of the Shadows, so of course the audience discounts this.
Then, in season 4, the bill for trust in benevolent parent figures arrives: the Vorlons reveal themselves as ruthless bastards of the first order who don't care about the body count, as long as they're proven right in their eternal war with the Shadows. JMS, the show's creator, has been head to say that the showdown between the Alliance on the one hand, and the Shadows and Vorlons on the other, is all about killing your parents. So far, so Freudian, though he muddles waters by including yet another parent figure in the game, Lorien, who as the deus ex machina and the superior force to both Shadows and Vorlons offers the solution to get rid of them without actually killing them. But Lorien or no Lorien, the lesson remains - don't trust these superior mentor types.
In the Jossverse, which started out, after all, with a show based on adolescence and rite of passage as a premise, it's not surprising that the first superior authority institution, the Council of Watchers, is discredited as early as season 3. During the first three seasons, there were some, but only a few hints (in Becoming and Amends that I can think of), at some superior supernatural forces who also operate as guiding figures. This was detailed further in the spin-off, AtS, where The Powers that Be were talked about on a regular basis. Again, like the Watchers on BTVS at first (I'm talking movie and first two seasons here), they seemed benevolent - interested in guiding Angel towards his redemption, giving Cordelia the painful but ultimately beneficial gift of visions which in turn enabled her and her friends to help others. Much like the Vorlons on B5, they had their visible evil counterpart not just in the occasional villain of the week but in the established, organized villains, Wolfram & Hart and the ominous "Senior Partners".
There are actually some B5 references in both BTVS and AtS. I suppose it's not surprising that TPTB started to look more suspiciously over the seasons. Again, there were hints you can argue about at first. But come season 4, we got the Jasmine arc. (While simultaneously season 7 on BTVS revealed that the very existence of Slayers started with a massive violation - the image of the First Slayer chained to the ground is one which will always stay with me.) Now Skip might have been boasting a lot, and Jasmine could have been exaggerating or being economical with the truth somewhat when defining herself as one of the Powers. But according to David Fury and Tim Minear at the Succubus Club, Joss' basic idea for Jasmine - who look quit a lot like a Vorlon in her tentacly form -, or rather, Jasmine's aim, was for it to be an enforced garden of Eden status for humanity. Good without choice. And all the dead who Jasmine, or her helpers, killed on the way justified by achieving this much as the Vorlons justify their slaughter in season 4 by the idea that the complete defeat of the Shadows will be worth it.
Angel & Co. reject this fate for humanity (with the added irony that Angel later chooses it for Connor, in a way). Whether or not the rejection of Jasmine means that in the future, The Powers That Be (whose status remains ambiguous - their only undoubtedly benevolent act this season was the Darla and Connor meeting, and Connor, the only one who witnessed this, does no longer remember it) will be rejected as well, only future episodes will tell.
Firefly, in what episodes we have (insert obligatory rant at Fox here), operates without any apparently benevolent superior forces altogether, be they human, alien or supernatural. I don't think some would shown up later; in the Firefly universe, distrust at authority is already firmly established, and parental rejection has taken place. But then again Joss might have surprised us and opted for the need of reconciliation instead?
The distrust of Wise Old Men has infiltrated the Star Wars universe as well. If Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" attitude in the OT has made him look less than saintly and Gandalfian for only a few fans, the prequels have indicted the entire Jedi Order of the Old Republic as deeply flawed. There are no superior authorities in wisdom or morality in the prequels (which is one of the reasons why I love them), nor is there a black-and-white world view anymore. No matter whether it's Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda or the entire Council - they each make mistakes, and are shown to make them, and contribute to the tragedy developing. The only parental figure who does have all the answers and pushes things this way and that way is none other than Palpatine.
And lastly, we've got J.K. Rowling devoting an entire novel to the fallibility of father figures. Harry loses the saintly image of his real father which has been carefully build up during the earlier novels, sees his replacement father, Sirius, as equally flawed, and then loses him literally. And the Über-Father of the entire saga, Dumbledore, is robbed of his aura of flawless wisdom; he loses Harry's trust, and relations between them are only patchily repaired by the end. This in a novel where the primary villain isn't Voldemort but the ministry of magic, yet another institution which got introduced as seemingly benevolent and superior.
What's a dedicated genre fan to make of all of this? Probably draw the old Fox Mulder lesson and trust no one. Certainly not Wise Old Men (or Women). Which makes it so suprising that any incarnation of John Crichton, geek that he is, does, see above.
Some more links for Potterverse aficionados:blackfall rants very entertainingly about Fanon!Snape here, and Canon!Snape facts are listed here..
Hm. And:
Hm. Considering I lurked for quite a while beforeraincitygirl gave me an lj code, this could be true...
astrogirl2 made some excellent points about TalynJohn's body count being actually higher than MoyaJohn's thanks to the Scarran Dreadnought here, which led searose & self to speculation about the nature of the Ancients (and TJohn's complete trust as opposed to MJohn's attitude later towards Einstein). It occurred to me that the - justified - mistrust in seemingly benevolent, superior mentor figures is something relatively new (correct me if I'm wrong). As a friend of mine put it, would Arthur have distrusted Merlin? Frodo have distrusted Gandalf? Would Luke have distrusted Obi-Wan? (Answer: no, but he should have.*g*) On the other hand, within the last decade or so, we've got the Vorlons on Babylon 5, the forcers of order as opposed to the Shadows as forces of chaos, and Kosh I definitely has the Merlin position towards Sheridan's Arthur. Despite some early warning signals (such as the Vorlon's willingness to let Delenn be interrogated by Sebastian, aka Jack the Ripper, or their threatened retaliation in the pilot), the show's heroes and the audience are lulled into thinking of the Vorlons as trustworthy, even angelic, superior forces. This includes, interesting for Farscape fans, the way the parent card is played - Kosh appears to both G'kar and Sheridan as their respective fathers. When the first doubt as to the nature of the Vorlons is voiced ("if you see a Vorlon, you see exactly what you are meant to see"), it's by agents of the Shadows, so of course the audience discounts this.
Then, in season 4, the bill for trust in benevolent parent figures arrives: the Vorlons reveal themselves as ruthless bastards of the first order who don't care about the body count, as long as they're proven right in their eternal war with the Shadows. JMS, the show's creator, has been head to say that the showdown between the Alliance on the one hand, and the Shadows and Vorlons on the other, is all about killing your parents. So far, so Freudian, though he muddles waters by including yet another parent figure in the game, Lorien, who as the deus ex machina and the superior force to both Shadows and Vorlons offers the solution to get rid of them without actually killing them. But Lorien or no Lorien, the lesson remains - don't trust these superior mentor types.
In the Jossverse, which started out, after all, with a show based on adolescence and rite of passage as a premise, it's not surprising that the first superior authority institution, the Council of Watchers, is discredited as early as season 3. During the first three seasons, there were some, but only a few hints (in Becoming and Amends that I can think of), at some superior supernatural forces who also operate as guiding figures. This was detailed further in the spin-off, AtS, where The Powers that Be were talked about on a regular basis. Again, like the Watchers on BTVS at first (I'm talking movie and first two seasons here), they seemed benevolent - interested in guiding Angel towards his redemption, giving Cordelia the painful but ultimately beneficial gift of visions which in turn enabled her and her friends to help others. Much like the Vorlons on B5, they had their visible evil counterpart not just in the occasional villain of the week but in the established, organized villains, Wolfram & Hart and the ominous "Senior Partners".
There are actually some B5 references in both BTVS and AtS. I suppose it's not surprising that TPTB started to look more suspiciously over the seasons. Again, there were hints you can argue about at first. But come season 4, we got the Jasmine arc. (While simultaneously season 7 on BTVS revealed that the very existence of Slayers started with a massive violation - the image of the First Slayer chained to the ground is one which will always stay with me.) Now Skip might have been boasting a lot, and Jasmine could have been exaggerating or being economical with the truth somewhat when defining herself as one of the Powers. But according to David Fury and Tim Minear at the Succubus Club, Joss' basic idea for Jasmine - who look quit a lot like a Vorlon in her tentacly form -, or rather, Jasmine's aim, was for it to be an enforced garden of Eden status for humanity. Good without choice. And all the dead who Jasmine, or her helpers, killed on the way justified by achieving this much as the Vorlons justify their slaughter in season 4 by the idea that the complete defeat of the Shadows will be worth it.
Angel & Co. reject this fate for humanity (with the added irony that Angel later chooses it for Connor, in a way). Whether or not the rejection of Jasmine means that in the future, The Powers That Be (whose status remains ambiguous - their only undoubtedly benevolent act this season was the Darla and Connor meeting, and Connor, the only one who witnessed this, does no longer remember it) will be rejected as well, only future episodes will tell.
Firefly, in what episodes we have (insert obligatory rant at Fox here), operates without any apparently benevolent superior forces altogether, be they human, alien or supernatural. I don't think some would shown up later; in the Firefly universe, distrust at authority is already firmly established, and parental rejection has taken place. But then again Joss might have surprised us and opted for the need of reconciliation instead?
The distrust of Wise Old Men has infiltrated the Star Wars universe as well. If Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" attitude in the OT has made him look less than saintly and Gandalfian for only a few fans, the prequels have indicted the entire Jedi Order of the Old Republic as deeply flawed. There are no superior authorities in wisdom or morality in the prequels (which is one of the reasons why I love them), nor is there a black-and-white world view anymore. No matter whether it's Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda or the entire Council - they each make mistakes, and are shown to make them, and contribute to the tragedy developing. The only parental figure who does have all the answers and pushes things this way and that way is none other than Palpatine.
And lastly, we've got J.K. Rowling devoting an entire novel to the fallibility of father figures. Harry loses the saintly image of his real father which has been carefully build up during the earlier novels, sees his replacement father, Sirius, as equally flawed, and then loses him literally. And the Über-Father of the entire saga, Dumbledore, is robbed of his aura of flawless wisdom; he loses Harry's trust, and relations between them are only patchily repaired by the end. This in a novel where the primary villain isn't Voldemort but the ministry of magic, yet another institution which got introduced as seemingly benevolent and superior.
What's a dedicated genre fan to make of all of this? Probably draw the old Fox Mulder lesson and trust no one. Certainly not Wise Old Men (or Women). Which makes it so suprising that any incarnation of John Crichton, geek that he is, does, see above.
Some more links for Potterverse aficionados:
blackfall rants very entertainingly about Fanon!Snape here, and Canon!Snape facts are listed here.. Hm. And:
Hm. Considering I lurked for quite a while before
raincitygirl gave me an lj code, this could be true...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-29 05:03 am (UTC)Distrust towards authority figures is so much older, and so much more Zen.
Kill the Buddha!
I'm more of a Jungian myself anyway.*g*
Date: 2003-08-29 05:59 am (UTC)Well, yes, but I'm talking about representations in popular culture here. Also, usually for every "bad" authority figure there is a benevolent one. Think of the usual presentations of the Robin Hood legend with the Prince John/King Richard duality; only more recent versions, such as Robin of Sherwood made the case for Richard being just as bad, i.e. there is no good father to the rescue in sight.
Kill the Buddha!
I was wondering why you first wrote "Bill the Buddha".*g* This created strange mental images...
Re: I'm more of a Jungian myself anyway.*g*
Date: 2003-08-29 06:17 am (UTC)I was wondering why you first wrote "Bill the Buddha".*g* This created strange mental images...
I had an argument with LJ's commenting interface and lost. Bill the Buddha! It's the American way! Hee.
Seriously, though: Zen is older than both Freud and Jung, and Marduk's murder of poor old Tiamat dates back further. The gods were not good. Heroes were always killers. See The Demon Lover by Robin Morgan.
And existentialism might be what you're looking for.
"Man, do I hate godlike aliens!"
Date: 2003-08-29 09:06 am (UTC)Farscape does borrow very heavily from Trek (if only to take the sci-fi cliches it invented or popularized and turn them on their heads), and Crichton is obviously a big Trek fan who's even been known to explicitly use Kirk for a role model, so it is a bit odd that he doesn't regard Ancient!Jack with the kind of suspicion any Trek fan worth his ears is going to muster up for a godlike alien. And, indeed, he doesn't seem to respond that way to any of the other godlike aliens he meets (including, as you say, Einstein). I've already expressed my own thoughts on why that might be over on my own journal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/astrogirl2/11371.html), but the father-figure stuff you bring up is definitely interesting.
Re: "Man, do I hate godlike aliens!"
Date: 2003-08-29 10:50 pm (UTC)Lorien
Date: 2003-08-29 10:32 am (UTC)Re: Lorien
Date: 2003-08-29 01:33 pm (UTC)Good points!
Date: 2003-08-29 10:50 am (UTC)Anyway, minor quibble on SW. While there are no clear benevolent mortal authorities, I'd say you can turn to the Force itself to fill that role. TPM describes it as having a "will" - establishing it as more than just an energy field. Possibly the best point Greg Bear made in Rogue Planet was that the Jedi Order is a religion not because they believe in the Force (it's physically demonstrable that it exists) but because they believe it is good.
But even distrust in the Force is created in the PT, since there is a prophecy that seems to cause only death and destruction. However, that seems to be a loss of faith that occurs primarily for the viewer, not the characters (although who knows how the Order handles it in EpIII). Whether faith in the benevolence is restored to the Jedi (or their blue ghostie selves) by the end of RotJ is up for debate. I think it is, but that depends on your interpretation of how the prophecy played out.
Re: Good points!
Date: 2003-08-29 09:11 pm (UTC)You've got a point about the Force in the SW universe, and about distrust among the viewers. It really depends how you interpret the prophecy, and whether you think it was inevitable at all, i.e. how far is the SW universe one which allows free choice? Irresistably, a Babylon 5 quote occurs to me. One of the characters has dreamed of his own death for years, and when he's in a moral and physical crisis, he points out he already knows how he's going to die, and this isn't it. Another character points out that this isn't so; he (the first character) could shoot himself tomorrow and the dream would be just a dream. "Prophecy is a guess which comes true. If it doesn't, it is only a metaphor."
no subject
Date: 2003-08-29 09:09 pm (UTC)I would kind of like to see something more along the lines of when Ivanova and Marcus went out in their White Star to recruit god-like aliens, and the god-like aliens basically ignored the crap out of them. Why should *they* care? About us? Ivanova had to nuke their egos to get them to blink in her general direction.
In the Star Wars universe, I've never seen it defined, but is there a limit to what a practitioner of the Force can do? Yoda hefted Luke's fighter out of a Dagoba swamp; what was to stop him from doing everything via Force remote? Is it like a gas tank? You've got to fill up again? Well, maybe the Force shouldn't be used for fetching snacks from the kitchen, though I'm not sure why not.
Firefly to me, at least in regards to Mal and Zoe, was more about the internal connections of a 'platoon' all on their own, rather than a group beset by equal or stronger outsiders. The vistas shifted, but the Serenity crew maintained (even with Jayne). Of course, this was season one, and I did read that Whedon wasn't going to jump head first into a major seasonal arc with Firefly, unless you count the weirdness that was River. Without the back 8-9 episodes, I am not sure the first thirteen can paint a seasonal portrait.
X-Files? I always thought the dichotomy between Mulder's 'Trust no one' and the plaintive 'I want to believe' was interesting, because they're nearly irreconcilable.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-29 09:14 pm (UTC)Lovely post, B5! Jossverse! I know I'm not the only fan of both shows, but I feel very cut-off from other B5 fans, and it was nice to be reminded of the depth that is there.
I was wondering about cutlural issues, the 60s with it's "Don't trust anyone over 30" and the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam War distrust of authority and how that influenced authors: joss, jms, george lucas and at least some of the creators of farscape are americans of a certain age, a generation more deeply marked by the above events. But Rowling is not american, she is british (not english but scottish? or english but now lives in scotland -- not entirely sure). And so I'm wondering what would be the events that shaped her attitudes to authority. Although it seems women are less inclined to identify with the power structure / wise old men / patriarchy.
post-Watergate/Vietnam certainly has something...
Date: 2003-08-29 09:55 pm (UTC)Joss is somewhat younger than the two of them (and btw spent some formative years in England), but has been quite vocal about his liberalism as well (most recently in dissing Dubya).
You know, the 60s/70s as a period of generational rebellion and disaffection with parents and/or authority weren't limited to the US. Au contraire. In Germany, for example, it combined with what we call Vergangenheitsbewältigung; after the "let's not talk about it" period of the Fifties, it was the time when practically everyone's parents suddenly found themselves questioned and in the dock. You had the student movement there and in France as well, and ironically at the same time the "velvet spring" in Checheslovaka, which brutally ended of course in 1968. You had anti-Vietnam demonstrations all over the world.
As for Rowling (English but spent years in Scotland as far as I recall), I don't recall such direct comments as there are from JMS, Joss & Lucas but given that she got to experience the power structures of school systems directly (and I'm told that among other things, the whole Umbridge plot is an acid satire on state interference in British schools) and lived through the Thatcher years, I'd say we won't have to look far to what formed her world view.
Re: post-Watergate/Vietnam certainly has something...
Date: 2003-09-04 06:34 pm (UTC)I do know that, the point I was failing to make is that I personally am not enough of an historian or sociologist to know what specific events are considered to be the triggers in other parts of the world. (I was a biology major). I was just musing out loud and recognizing a surprisingly large gap in my own knowledge. I was taught very little about the 60s and 70s from a global perspective. I don't even know what was going on in the UK -- I didn't realize until just this year that the british monetary system went through decimalization in the 70s. I had though they were still using shillings and farthings and whatnot.
In the US modern distrust of authority is usually attrbuted to Watergate/Vietnam, although I think that is a bit simplistic. I think there was...something in the air, i.e. even if the war hadn't escalated and Watergate never happened, it would have been something else, some other focus or scandal that seemed to be the cause but is really just an illustration of the times, the climate. And I suspect that is true in other places as well.
Of course, I believe in astrology, so I find explanations there too.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-30 12:02 am (UTC)Would Arthur have distrusted Merlin? Well, quite possibly, given that Merlin in the older versions of the legends was a bastard (literally), the son of the devil, and a generally untrustworthy and dangerous individual.
I mean, look at his main actions in the story. He made a deal with Uther Pendragon, allowing Uther to rape Igraine in the form of her husband. In return for assisting this crime, he demands the fruit of their union and removes the infant Arthur from his family. He has the child raised in secret and manipulates circumstances to put his chosen monarch on the throne. Then, when Arthur could have used some good advice, Merlin's not around because he tried to rape his apprentice and she locked him up in a tree.
Obviously there are multiple versions of all of the above events (and not all of them are present in all stories) but it can certainly be argued that the character has very dark roots. Does that make him some kind of villain? Not by the standards of the story - his major aim is the defence of Britain via a strong king. His means of doing so, however, are frequently questionable.
The Merlin archetype is the place where the falling Sky God meets the rising Trickster. Whether you can trust him or not ... well that depends on what you mean by trust. Trust his devotion to his goal? Absolutely. Trust him to preserve individual life, to be honest, to always do the right thing? Hell no.
I've been thinking of writing an essay about fandom reaction to characters like Xavier, Giles and Dumbledore - especially when they make mistakes - and you've certainly given me more things to think about ...
Point taken about Merlin.
Date: 2003-08-30 04:57 am (UTC)However, while Merlin certainly is a morally ambiguous figure in the older versions of the legend (and in quite a lot of the postmodern ones as well), I don't recall this resulting in Arthur not trusting him, or becoming disillusioned. Or am I missing something?
He made a deal with Uther Pendragon, allowing Uther to rape Igraine in the form of her husband.
This reminds me of T.H.White, I think, finding it ever so petty of Morgan to resent and hate Merlin for what he did to her mother and father... Of course while Merlin's image got brightened during the centuries, Morgan's got blackened, until Marion Zimmer Bradley reversed the trend.
Re: Point taken about Merlin.
Date: 2003-08-30 06:54 pm (UTC)Eventually, I think I will - I do like the story, and keep being faintly surprised when people ask after it *g*.
Or am I missing something?
It's very hard to say if Arthur trusts Merlin or not in the early versions of the legends - that kind of psychological detail is pretty thin on the ground. He seems to value his advice, but given that the audience's attention is drawn to the fact that Merlin isn't particularly trustworthy, he could be taking it with a grain of salt.
One thing that could possibly suggest that he doesn't is the whole Guenhavere prophecy: Merlin tells him not to marry her because it will only lead to trouble, but Arthur goes ahead and does it anyway. It's possible that he's simply being his father's son - stubborn and desparate to get his hands on the woman he wants, no matter what the cost. It's also possible that he doesn't find Merlin's advice entirely reliable. You could read it either way, or both ways.
This reminds me of T.H.White, I think, finding it ever so petty of Morgan to resent and hate Merlin for what he did to her mother and father... Of course while Merlin's image got brightened during the centuries, Morgan's got blackened, until Marion Zimmer Bradley reversed the trend.
Indeed - I think that's definitely part of the trend towards 'don't trust the wise old man' in recent popular culture. Recent represenations of Merlin have been far less fluffy than White's, who tends to Mary Sue Merlin. (Much as I love The Once and Future King in other respects, Merlin does suffer from being used as both comic relief and a mouthpiece for philosophy.)
It probably doesn't surprise you to hear that I like it best when mentor figures are morally ambiguous - trying to do the right thing, but not always in the right way ...
Oh, I like morally ambiguous mentor figures as well.
Date: 2003-08-30 10:23 pm (UTC)Re: Oh, I like morally ambiguous mentor figures as well.
Date: 2003-08-30 11:07 pm (UTC)The only thing about it that annoys me is a side-effect - the tendency of fandom to assume that because the Wise Old Man is not perfect and godlike, he must go to the other extreme and be a demon in human form. But heaven knows I've ranted about Xavier-bashing enough over the years *g*.
Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-08-30 11:29 pm (UTC)Though it's different if the Wise Old Man in question CLAIMED unimpeachable moral authority before being revealed as flawed, I'd say...
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-08-31 05:35 am (UTC)I always hesitate to psychoanalyse other fans, especially in negative ways, but it does look like that's often the case. Obviously finding out that your father is not God but rather a fallible mortal who shall someday die is a fundamental trauma of the human psyche - I just wish people wouldn't take it out on Charles *g*.
(I find it fascinating that, when Giles started acting in ways a large number of fans didn't like he was declared to be Pod!Giles instead of demonised. That's partly because Joss wanted us to think he was the First, of course, but the trend neither begun nor ended with that subplot.)
Though it's different if the Wise Old Man in question CLAIMED unimpeachable moral authority before being revealed as flawed, I'd say...
Indeed. I'm also inclined to become attached to those like Xavier and Giles who ask a lot of themselves as well as their charges. The 'do as we say because we're right' model that seems to be the norm of the Watcher's Council is another thing entirely.
I was thinking after your post on hero-bashing, actually, that one of the roots of the problem is that many fans see a claim to absolute moral authority where none has (IMHO) been made. A lot of fans would accuse Buffy, Blake and Charles (just to name three characters at random) of being people who claim the moral highground and therefore authority over other people. I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of what they've said and done.
They've all been known to point out that they're better than the competition and/or the only game in town, of course, but that's a rather different claim ...
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-08-31 06:37 am (UTC)Yes, that is fascinating. Giles seems to have a strange immunity from the demonisation process - you just know that if it had been Xavier, or Dumbledore, say, they would be blamed, not their creators. I remember all the "out of character" accusations after Lies my parents told me and wondered: Did any of these people watch Helpless in the third season?
The mystery of Giles' immunity from mentor demonisation might be due to the fact he's regarded as sexy. (Whereas good old Albus is not, and, correct me if I'm wrong, Xavier only rather recently aquired the title due to Patrick Stewart.) It has been my experience that characters who are regarded as sexy, no matter their canonical status, are usually regarded as either always in the right or, if they're in the wrong, understandably so.
I was thinking after your post on hero-bashing, actually, that one of the roots of the problem is that many fans see a claim to absolute moral authority where none has (IMHO) been made. A lot of fans would accuse Buffy, Blake and Charles (just to name three characters at random) of being people who claim the moral highground and therefore authority over other people. I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of what they've said and done.
Yes, I think you're dead-on here. And it's funny, if you ask people, for example, in which episode Blake claimed the others ought to follow him because of him having the moral highground, they're hard-pressed to come up with an answer. Or, in the case of Buffy, they quote out of context or only half the phrase spoken. (Case in point: her "therapy" session with Holden in CWDP, which just got a Hugo, I hear. Countless times I've seen it cited as proof that Buffy thinks she's superior. Somehow, the equally important "I feel that I'm beneath them" and "I behaved as a monster" passed right by them.) I imagine much the same is true for Xavier bashers.
Oh, and of course it's very easy to quote examples of Blake, Buffy and Xavier pushing themselves and judging themselves just as harshly, if not more so, than anyone else.
They've all been known to point out that they're better than the competition and/or the only game in town, of course, but that's a rather different claim ...
Quite true.*g* Someone has to fight the Federation, poor Charles is stuck with trying to stop a mutant/human war because so many others are hell-bent on fighting one, and when Buffy says, in Selfless, "I am the law", she says so sadly, not self-righteously or triumphantly, not in the sense of "...and I can do what I want" but in the sense of "there is no one else who can take the responsibility from me".
Also, each of them, I think, would regard passivity - the looking away in cases of emergency - as a cardinal sin. A trait I like in a world which increasingly looks away.
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-09-02 12:43 am (UTC)I certainly didn't here many cries of 'that's not really Albus! He's being badly written!' after OotP. Don't even get me started on Charles *g*.
I remember all the "out of character" accusations after Lies my parents told me and wondered: Did any of these people watch Helpless in the third season?
All the negative personality traits Giles displays in the later seasons - from withholding information from Buffy to running away when things just get too hard - are there in the first three. But I have a long post about that to write once I rewatch some episodes.
(Whereas good old Albus is not, and, correct me if I'm wrong, Xavier only rather recently aquired the title due to Patrick Stewart.)
Actually, I still get some odd looks over that one. Although less so from movie fans.
It has been my experience that characters who are regarded as sexy, no matter their canonical status, are usually regarded as either always in the right or, if they're in the wrong, understandably so.
Ah, yes. Because of course if you look good, naturally you must be good.
This falls under Things That Annoy Me About Fandom #376: the conflation of emotional response and rational argument.
I admit to being powerless in the face of Giles's puppy dog eyes myself. I instantly forgave him for every questionable thing he'd done during Season Seven because he played D&D with Andrew. However, I'm not under the mistaken impression this is a rational argument in favour of his actions.
The inability of people to separate 'I like X' from 'X is good/right' never ceases to drive me up the wall. It's possible to like a character and still aknowledge that they're flawed, or even evil.
And it's funny, if you ask people, for example, in which episode Blake claimed the others ought to follow him because of him having the moral highground, they're hard-pressed to come up with an answer.
I think the closest he gets - and it's hardly close - is 'you could be looking at them' in response to Vila's 'where are all the good guys?'
Given the tone of voice - and the fact that he's including everyone up to and including Vila in the description - I'm pretty sure he's making a rather black joke. Especially since that he gives up any claim to the moral highground earlier in Shadow, in favour of means-to-an-end pragmatism. Blake is a man who ultimately sacrifices everything for his cause - up to and including his own moral purity.
Or, in the case of Buffy, they quote out of context or only half the phrase spoken.
That, too, drives me crazy. Watch the frelling episode, people! All of it!
I imagine much the same is true for Xavier bashers.
Ironically, most of the evidence - including God Loves, Man Kills - suggests that, far from thinking himself a saint, Charles Xavier is desparate to be good because he believes on some fundamental that he's not good. And perhaps never can be.
Oh, and of course it's very easy to quote examples of Blake, Buffy and Xavier pushing themselves and judging themselves just as harshly, if not more so, than anyone else.
I don't even have to think about it: Trial, Conversations With Dead People and ... well, I won't get into obscure X-Men issue numbers, but Charles is on record saying that he thinks himself a monster.
Also, each of them, I think, would regard passivity - the looking away in cases of emergency - as a cardinal sin. A trait I like in a world which increasingly looks away.
Indeed. I admire that in Blake, especially, since Buffy and Xavier were both forced to live up to power they were landed with through no fault or desire of their own. (Which they ultimately manage to do in their different ways.)
Nobody died and made Blake the man who has to fight the Federation - he always has the option of sitting down and shutting up. Except that it's clearly not an option, in spite of the impossible odds against winning. The only time it occurs to him to stop is when he fears he might be doing more harm than good, wasting lives for nothing. Better to light a candle than to curse - or worse, ignore - the darkness.
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-09-02 08:09 am (UTC)Nah. Potterfans reserved that particular objection for Draco.*g* (Insert my usual "I don't get the adoration for dull Draco Malfoy" blather here.)
Actually, I still get some odd looks over that one.
?!? To quote you: "But...Patrick!"
I instantly forgave him for every questionable thing he'd done during Season Seven because he played D&D with Andrew.
Which was extremely cute, and such a Joss touch to put in the episode.
However, I'm not under the mistaken impression this is a rational argument in favour of his actions.
Allow me a sigh as I think of all the "everything which happened on Gauda Prime is Blake's fault" and "Avon didn't really mean it in Orbit arguments...
The inability of people to separate 'I like X' from 'X is good/right' never ceases to drive me up the wall. It's possible to like a character and still aknowledge that they're flawed, or even evil.
No kidding. I mean, I like people like Warren or Servalan...
Nobody died and made Blake the man who has to fight the Federation - he always has the option of sitting down and shutting up. Except that it's clearly not an option, in spite of the impossible odds against winning.
Now I have the urge to filk "To fight the impossible fight" for Blake. You know, The Man of La Mancha. Curses! Sweet seems to be still with us.
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-09-03 03:59 am (UTC)It's very strange indeed - I don't think he's even described as attractive in the books. The influence of fanfiction, I suppose.
To quote you: "But...Patrick!"
People who have Xavier ingrained in their minds as 'asexual mentor figure' sometimes remain unswayed even by the glory of Patrick Stewart. And some people have issues with baldness or men over forty that I will never understand ...
Which was extremely cute, and such a Joss touch to put in the episode.
'Illusions? Against a burninator? Silly, silly British man ...'
Allow me a sigh as I think of all the "everything which happened on Gauda Prime is Blake's fault"
Well, of course it was. Blake forced Avon to shoot him by ... er ... being misunderstood. Avon has the leather pants, so he must be in the right, even if he couldn't wait five minutes and hear Blake's side of thes story before opening fire. Bad Blake. No biscut.
Seriously - even without seeing Season Four, I can understand the psychological pressures that conspired on Avon to put him in a tragically trigger-happy mood, and I gather Blake made mistakes. That doesn't make Avon an angel and Blake a demon in rebel form ... and Blake wasn't the one who pulled a gun on a frined and ally over a misunderstanding.
I mean, I like people like Warren or Servalan...
You know, I was actually thinking today that I don't think I've ever really loved a character who didn't unsettle me on one level or another. Faults are what make the interesting.
Curses! Sweet seems to be still with us.
Filking is a tragic yet amusing adiction, obviously. I now have visions of Blake tilting at windmills, and Avon as the snarkiest Sancho Panza in history ...
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-09-03 04:41 am (UTC)Absolutely. I mean, young Tom Riddle IS described as good looking and charming (by Dumbledore, no less). But Rowlings' usual description for Draco is that he has a pale, pointed face. Which isn't ugly but doesn't double for attractive, either. Then you've got the phenomenon of Snape magically transforming into a sex god in fanfic, but at least with Snape, change of physical description aside, you have some canon basis to see him as an interesting character worth further exploration. Draco has to be the first case where fanon has come up with something based solely on other fandoms, but not on the original source. It's the only explanation I have for how he ended up as the bastard of Spike and Lex Luthor (Smallville edition). And since JKR clearly has absolutely no intention to go in that direction, the gap between fannish expectations based on fanon and canon will grow ever wider.
People who have Xavier ingrained in their minds as 'asexual mentor figure' sometimes remain unswayed even by the glory of Patrick Stewart. And some people have issues with baldness or men over forty that I will never understand ...
The more fool they.
Blake forced Avon to shoot him by ... er ... being misunderstood. Avon has the leather pants, so he must be in the right, even if he couldn't wait five minutes and hear Blake's side of thes story before opening fire. Bad Blake. No biscut.
I kid you not - there are plenty of PGP fanfics in which our heroes are revived/rescued in various ways (mostly Blake's followers reconquer the base and Blake & Co. survive due to the wonders of futuristic medicine), and then Blake is lectured by Vila that it is all his fault, and how Avon suffered in his absence, and then Blake grovels in abject apology at Avon's feet.
Seriously - even without seeing Season Four, I can understand the psychological pressures that conspired on Avon to put him in a tragically trigger-happy mood
Oh yeah. It's completely understandable. In simplified form, you could call it the Anna complex. Poor Avon obviously took The Ballad of Reading Goal far too serious...
I gather Blake made mistakes
So he does. It's the most fatal case of mutually grown paranoia and paradoxical longing for trust ever.
I now have visions of Blake tilting at windmills, and Avon as the snarkiest Sancho Panza in history ...
"Windmill? Qichotte, I'm still amazed even a sentimental idiot like you would..."
"Get back to your position."
Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.
Date: 2003-09-04 05:00 am (UTC)That does seem to be the case, and I think it is a new phenomenon, perhaps caused by increasing multifandomness. People have always gotten characters wrong, of course, but the wholesale appropriation and projection of characters from different texts altogether is something new.
And since JKR clearly has absolutely no intention to go in that direction, the gap between fannish expectations based on fanon and canon will grow ever wider.
I imagine so. All canon-in-progress presents some risk to preconceptions about characters, but seldom have those preconceptions been quite so far from authorial intent.
Then Blake is lectured by Vila that it is all his fault, and how Avon suffered in his absence, and then Blake grovels in abject apology at Avon's feet.
Because of course Vila, post-Orbit, considers Avon a completely trustworthy friend and ally who would never do anything wrong. And Blake is known for grovelling ...
Remind me to never, ever read one of these stories.
Poor Avon obviously took The Ballad of Reading Goal far too serious...
Which is another reason why people who don't see the Blake-Avon bond confuse me. I can understand not wanting to see it as sexual (I think that's one of those things that's entirely open to interpretation) but to argue that it's not there ... the paralells drawn between Blake and Anna seem very clear.
It's the most fatal case of mutually grown paranoia and paradoxical longing for trust ever.
It may be that one of the reasons Avon gets more sympathy from fans is that we know why he's paranoid, because we followed his journey. You actually need to think about how the no doubt equally dreadful things that have happened to Blake contributed to his state of mind.
"Windmill? Qichotte, I'm still amazed even a sentimental idiot like you would..."
"Get back to your position."
Oh dear. I'm never going to get the picture out of my head now *g*.