When it is not criticism...
I can't believe this needs to be said but here we are...
When it comes to historic series, or series set in a certain historic context, I tend to avoid looking at it from a contemporary lens (mind you, not modern, but contemporary). It is not just about moral differences, it is about understanding that morals mean (or used to mean) different things in different cultural contexts. I loved this one post on Tumblr that talked about how shows like TAD tend to (or at least try to) pry away from orientalist lens. I particularly loved the point OP made that people who tend to look down upon harem system and refuse to see women in harem system anything more than sex slaves are the same people who would cheer enterprising women living in similar Western historic context as exemplary. One interpretation I could understand was people see women in European historic/period shows and dramas despite the structure and structure in non-Western historic shows despite women. This is a very important difference to understand why women caught in patriarchal systems of European historic shows are celebrated while women with similar characterisation in non-European/non-Western historic shows are reduced to their structures. No matter how resourceful or resilient a non-European/non-Western woman is in that historic structure, ultimately she is a victim. But for the other way around women are capable of rising through the ranks despite being victims. This is an important reason why I have quite a harsh take on contemporary moralist interpretations of historic series like TAD...
I do not discredit critique....Many times historic shows are made to draw a parallel and critique flows naturally. Many of these structures were not okay and that is many times the point. These historic series make us realise that human history can hardly be described as idealistic. I find shows/series that excessively glorify past impractical. And female-centric series/franchise like TAD is essentially a long social commentary on kind of structures women dealt with. But instead of following a false dichotomy of victim/rebel, the franchise shows how women dealt with structures in a number of ways, some even using the same structures to reach zenith of power. For instance, within one clan, Shisui and Suirei lived two very different realities, despite Suirei having Royal blood. This shows how power equations can even stump these social qualifiers. However, when the clan's power reached its end, the presence of other qualifiers besides the clan one became the reason for Suirei's survival (here, something as influential as being a royal descendent)...Similarly, within the same brothel, some courtesans had a very different standing than others. So, the point is these people were products of their structure and criticism is a natural expectation when we interact with such media. What I find problematic is people misinterpreting the source material because they have a certain set standard for how characters should behave, and that is mostly eurocentric..Many of these "educated" takes simply
—refuse to see that characters are trying to do their best despite the structure
— refuse to believe that a strong female can be non-conventional beyond gender-related ways ( for example, she need not to be a closeted lesbian to be deemed as unconventional or interesting, especially in a series that has a strong Lesbian character in imperial China)...By the way, who came up with non-conventionality= gender?
— refuse to believe that a strong, unconventional woman ≠ woman who wants to remain alone/runaway/has no love interest. MaoMao's character is about her growth in her profession and her eccentricity, why would it disqualify her from seeking love or family?
— refuse to see that not every strong woman wanted to be a European monarch/warrior-like titular character in their respective structure. Not everyone chased throne or crown
— refuse to believe that idea of change in every society was not a function of a single monarch's decree/regime change. This point is especially highlighted well in TAD as to how the Emperor, despite having the absolute power, could not just change rules/laws based on his whims and fancies and there were various clans, situated at different levels in society, who had stakes in those laws. And sometimes, losing the favour of clan meant losing the region.
Another very important contention I have with these takes is that they want women in these historic series to have similar take on structures like marriage as their European peers. This is a flawed logic. Again coming to the power of clans in TAD. These were essentially families, and not tribes, and because these families had certain power, hence marriage was not just another social custom even between the clans. Clans choose whom to marry as carefully as the royalty did, as their power depended upon these ties. TAD has many clans following matriarchy but they show how even that was more about concentrating power than bringing societal change. In other words, these clans were not just about repression/restriction, they were essentially centres of power. A matriarch was as selective about the clan as a patriarch. So, a character like MaoMao just could not afford to live alone because she wanted to, at the end she belonged to a clan that handled military affairs. If it was not Jinshi, it would have been someone else. As long as MaoMao stayed in Li, she could not possibly escape marriage, and because she understood these power dynamics, she had a very practical view of marriage. In fact, it has been portrayed that even sex workers who could not find a buyer were ultimately thrown out of brothels. MaoMao had a very transactional view of marriage, given the kind of society it was, she would have probably never been allowed not to marry (tho I would want she remains single than end as monarch).... In fact, MaoMao and Jinshi not being married in their 20s is exception in itself, given Emperor and Ah-Duo had Jinshi by the time they turned 20. In fact, there is a scene in season 2 only where MaoMao comments how talk of Lingli's marriage had already been taken into consideration in her upbringing.
However, my main point of contention- throwing word "abuse" so casually. Many times if I have reacted to these posts, especially those with Jinshi hate, I haven't reacted much out of defense of a character than these people using word abuse so nominally to define Jinshi's actions. If Jinshi is what they understand as abuse, I wonder just how much media have they actually interacted with, let alone anime. It is my general observation that somehow historic men, especially in anime, prove far more supportive and progressive, than their modern contemporaries. Kind of power characters like Ryuuki and Jinshi have and the way they support their women, any contemporary male character with that kind of absolute power would be portrayed as a villain (such is the scope of abuse with that kind of power)...Contemporary male characters let down their female counterparts for far, far lower stakes than these characters ever did. I don't know what they want Jinshi to do to prove he is not abusive? I mean the kind of protocols, rules, stakes and norms these historic men have broken for their women, contemporary men could never. Not to sound mean but should he act like a corporate stud doing bare minimum for his love interest or as a High school gangster whose definition of protectiveness is saving a girl from a rival HS gang? Should he try to fit these 'standards.'? Contemporary MLs sweat in going against their school or company but somehow a man who is literally throwing away crown is not meeting these standards. I mean, maybe, these standards need a rethink?
There is a reason why most historic romances are tragedies because it is never that easy to navigate these entrenched power relations without provoking one part of society or other. It is the author's craft that she has managed to write such a nuanced historic fiction without dragging her leads through gore of death and destruction (so far). In fact, TAD has shown that those with power also become its prisoners but despite that those willing to move ahead will do so...Yang is not a perfect man but he is not half cruel as his father was, who in turn, himself was a rotten product of his circumstances. Jinshi also has some problematic aspects but no one in his family even comes closer to kindness, devotion and regard for MaoMao. Similarly, powerful women have also been represented in a number of ways....Empress Dowager despite being a ruthless woman brought systemic reforms.....Anshi despite being a resilient woman is still not able to act easily against her clan...Gyoukyo despite being the empress never really feels secure because she is a foreigner...So many examples in the franchise to show how power and agency of women interacts...Still people don't comprehend....
In the end, I reiterate that critique is a natural part of interacting with media, having a tunnel-vision isn't. You watch historic series to understand the timeline. If some piece of media is clashing so much with someone's standards, one should drop it. I think it is the fate of every fandom to have a certain section who gets the story completely wrong. I don't mind when it happens with sub-par stories whose only value is satiating the consumption trends. However, when once in a while, sincere storytelling like that in TAD happens, it really irritates me to see people failing to grasp even the most basic aspects of something they claim to understand and criticise.
turnnoffyourmind
dailybridgerton
gummygunk
romaincrisis
