Because I suddenly reappeared to mourn the death of our beloved green-eared hobgoblin, an explanation of my absence for anyone who cares:
So I've been away for a good long while. I love and miss everyone on here, and the fandoms we share, and the sense of community we have. I miss the ridiculous fanart and the beautiful fanart, I miss the .gifs and analyses, I miss reading and writing fics, and I miss mutually screaming over obscure trivia with like-minded souls. I might even dive in again one day!
But a year or two back (whenever it was I went AWOL) I realized tumblr was kind of toxic for me. I started feeling like a rat pushing the reward/meth button over and over to get a little burst of pleasure, to the exclusion of doing actually rewarding things in meatspace. It didn't help that at the time, my personal meatspace was less than appealing. Basically, the way this website works on a fundamental level enables something inside of me that scares me to death.
So I kind of quit cold turkey, and I've been doing really well. I have a job I enjoy, family and friends I love, and a much better sense of self than a year or two ago. On the other hand, I feel like I've lost most of my creative juice, which is something I still need to work on.
But at least once a week I think about Trek, and all my beautiful trekkies our fandom allowed me to "meet" here, and I hope everyone is doing as well as I've been lately.
Okay, so can I just say tumblr in general is really bad at a couple things:
recognizing that many people, probably most people, outside the ~tumblr fandom bubble~ flat-out don't understand the nuances of gender and sexuality, especially the relevant technical terminology or what can make something sound "problematic"
recognizing that reflex-attacking them for their ignorance (versus "I'm disappointed X said Y because they must not realize what Y means, can we teach them somehow?") just whips up a bunch of unproductive and premature wank
recognizing that validating intense emotional reactions to the point of near-infallibility on the part of the person expressing them might not always be a good thing
recognizing that just because feelings are powerful and worthy of acknowledgement and consideration doesn't mean they automatically confer the moral or factual high ground to the person expressing them
recognizing that while intent doesn't excuse people of their actions, it should goddamn well affect how you respond to them
If someone steps on your foot by mistake and either apologizes or is totally unaware, you are well within your rights to be hurt, but when you shout them down afterward and say they're a dirty rotten foot-stepper that makes you a jerk
I mean maybe this is the part of me who sympathizes heavily with Vulcans and Stoics (same difference) but I find it difficult to grasp this notion that emotions are beyond rational criticism or examination
Especially after nodding my way through "On Anger."
AKA Real Talk with Seneca
It's like half the time tumblr is trying to say feelings are these vicious, wild beasts that control us and we're just helpless against their onslaught
And if I believed that I probably would have given up on life a long time ago
I have to think there's a chance that one day, I won't be at the mercy of externals as much as I am now
(and I'm talkin' 'bout externals that affect my physical self not possibly inelegant statements from celebrities I admire)
Not to say controlling your feelings isn't incredibly fucking difficult but what's the alternative to trying?
The alternative is Achilles parading Hector's body around because he lost his fucking marbles over Patroclus
And if you try to control feelings at least there's a (slim) chance you'll end up like Diogenes who didn't give no fucks about nothing thank you very much
Or the Buddha because enlightenment = seeing the true nature of things
Let's be real Siddhartha and Seneca would have paled around and been like "dude you are so RIGHT"
And possibly consoled Marcus Aurelius together because the poor guy was so depressed and existential
....
what was I talking about
oh yeah
feelings =/= virtue
ADDENDUM: and a lot of the ancient dudes were big on the sentiment "don't get angry at uneducated people - pity them because they don't know any better and can't be moral or fully flourishing in their ignorance." I want to say Aristotle but he's not the only one.
On a Lighter Note: The Mechanics of a Musical Episode
Given that Jensen has the voice of an angel, Misha has some possible (and slightly insane) vocal chops, and Jared can probably carry a tune - although I think he's a reluctant singer - it would surprise me if the idea of a musical episode hasn't crossed TPTB's minds. Edlund's, at the very least.
If done right, it would be absolutely kickass. If done wrong, it would be a permanent embarrassment for the show; think the worst normal episode times ten. And there's not a whole lot of middle ground. So the show would be taking a huge risk, and to be honest, I'm not convinced it's a risk worth taking.
Regardless, it's fun to think about, and if they did decide to take the plunge, here are three ways I could see it going down:
Standard karaoke. Songs that already exist, carefully chosen to match each situation. See: Grey's Anatomy.
Pros: The songs are tried and true. They add automatic emotional or humorous effect since we know them and can anticipate how they'll fit the scene. And since we know them, we can sing along. Break out a bunch of classic rock and you've got a great fit for the universe.
Cons: Probably stupid expensive. Could be a real challenge, because songs designed for musicals and radio tend to be structured differently. Lacks originality. People could get very pissed and accuse the show of "desecrating" the songs, because people are touchy like that.
Original Songs. Make it all up from scratch. See: Buffy.
Pros: The songs would be tailored to fit the show perfectly. If done well, they could become a permanent fan touchstone and a source of many shenanigans. They would be unique and quintessentially Supernatural.
Cons: It's hard to write good original songs, let alone an entire musical's worth. It's hard and it's risky. There could very well be musical enthusiasts among the SPN writers, but chances are they'd have to do some serious outside consulting on this one.
Creative Karaoke. Songs that already exist, but with customized or altered lyrics. See: Weird Al Yankovic.
Pros: The melodies are tried and true. You get some of the benefits of standard karaoke, but you can be flexible by using slight tweaks or total rewrites. This flexibility might mean the songs are protected under fair use copyright law as "parodies." Perhaps less expensive as a result. Kind of a creative middle ground.
Cons: Lacks originality, but to a lesser degree than standard karaoke. Same risks with the potential for "desecrating" wank, which could be amplified because of the changes.
Honestly, I'm kind of partial to the karaoke options. There's room for multi-layered creativity, and the possibility for meta-jokes is tremendous. But depending on my mood, I could be persuaded toward original songs. It's just hard to consider when my measuring stick would be the utterly fantastic Buffy episode.
Thoughts? Opinions? Is a musical episode even worth the trouble? How would they go about it?
And spn does not 'queer-bait' any more than they tease with hits of heterosexual relationships (Meg-Cas, Dean-Jo, Sam-Pamela) they know and understand shippers, but show will go in the direction it wants to, regardless of what sections of fandom want to drive. so when show adds elements (and Misha agreed his usage of lip-service was wrong) of any sort of ship (including Sam-Dean) it's from a place of love, and i think a majority of fans know this.
Like I said, it’s a difficult and subjective thing. I didn’t mean to accuse the show of queerbaiting (edit: looking back, I feel that I didn't. I had a paragraph dedicated to the uncertainty of it) - I’m not certain on that myself - but I know people who eloquently and unabashedly have, so I tried to explain why those fans feel the way they do. Why what the show does sometimes could be interpreted as queerbaiting, depending on how the chips fall one day. I’m of the mind that it’s not over until it’s over, so we can’t possibly know yet, but… there you have it.
Anyway, there are so many assumptions in your ask I completely disagree with, I’m not sure where to begin. The fact that you’re equating what the show has done with Dean and Cas to… Sam and Pamela, for one. I can’t even wrap my head around that, to be honest. As for “the show going the direction it wants to” (which I snickered at a little because… a TV show is not a balloon set loose on the four winds) I would recommend reading silvenhorror’s stuff about the relationship between fans and creators. And I feel forced to mention precedent: Mulder and Scully quietly became a couple after years of intense fan speculation (and SPN referenced them in relation to Dean and Cas, by the way, during 8x08.)
As for it being from a place of love - I don’t doubt that. What I doubt is if TPTB fully understand the expectations they’re building among some of their fans. Yes, building. The show has been including suggestive things intentionally, and saying otherwise is doing the writers a disservice. If you tease long enough, people are going to start wondering, and then they’re going to start wanting some follow-through.
I think this line in Misha's panel is really telling -- "When you're studying Shakespeare, you don't really imagine that this is gonna be a feature of your career, but... it is, and... sweet." He equates 'shipping' and 'Destiel' with writing/reading/drawing porn, and fans on conventions do nothing to erase this misconception. When he's approached alone, he's much more serious & actually has similar ideas as most DeanCas shippers.
Exactly! That line is what made me step back and think “for chrissakes, give the man some brain food!” I want him to know there are many fans who, in a oddball sort of way, elevate SPN to the same level as Shakespeare through passionate critical analysis. I know there must be fans out there who have spent more time arguing for the textual validity of Destiel than they ever spent on their “Merchant of Venice” essay… and I doubt Misha would be the type to trivialize that.
And it’s such a shame, because like you said, he does seem to appreciate the Dean/Cas relationship - even a romantic interpretation - as something worth discussing or taking seriously. He just doesn’t get the labels fans toss around, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for that. It’s a disconnect I think we should be very conscious of, especially when interacting directly with him and the other actors, as this meta explains very well. Not out of shame, but simple respect and understanding.
Perhaps you could add warnings to posts where you feature actresses wearing brownface?
So, uh... not sure how to answer this, anon. Not sure I should answer this, because I have little experience addressing socially charged issues of such importance. I'm sorry if my reblog bothered you, but I'd like to drop some points (a few of them related to the things you brought up elsewhere. At least, I think it's you.)
A) I had no idea the actress was brownfaced. I honestly can't tell if she's wearing makeup to darken her skin, and I can't find an off-the-set photo of her from back then, so how do we know? Are my eyes just really bad and this sticks out like a sore thumb to everyone else?
B) She was also an extra in The Paradise Syndrome, which features a FAR more egregious use of brownface due to the ridiculous noble savage stereotypes and the fridging of the "Native American"/alien??? love interest. And the skin makeup was painfully obvious. There's a reason I don't reblog that episode. It's just bad.
C) Re: the above... all the sci-fi fans I know, and hopefully all the ones who follow me, are acutely aware that TOS has Issues. The entire show comes with the blanket warning label "product of its times that tried really hard and sometimes failed really hard," (which is more than you can say for its entertainment contemporaries). The modern fandom spends a huge amount of time re-imagining TOS, except better, for this reason.
Was it ignorant of them to cast someone non-Indian as Indian? Of course! But the show was made in 1966, was at the mercy of a sexist and racist network, and was part of an industry that to this day, treats non-white people horribly. We're talking about a time period where a major film studio let I.Y. Yunioshi exist. We're talking a mere two years after the Civil Rights Act passed. Yet the brief portrayal of Rahda in TOS was positive.
So casting a Jewish woman as an Indian woman in a position of power - she's a lieutenant driving the freakin' Enterprise - with the intention of representing an optimistic future with a diverse crew hardly strikes me as a sin in the grand scheme of Star Trek. Or in the grand scheme of A:TLA being whitewashed to hell and back in freakin' 2010. But that's another can o' worms.
And because I'm a pedantic microanalyst nerd, I could also talk about how there are Jewish enclaves in India thousands of years old. Hypothetically, Radha's character could be an Indian of Jewish ancestry (in keeping with her actress' background). Or I could talk about how India itself is a conglomeration of many different ethnic groups, so even if that isn't the actress' real skin tone, her appearance is not insultingly non-Indian. Compare with the Ten Commandments in which no one looks anything vaguely resembling Middle Eastern (where's the "I don't think you really tried at all" star?)
Basically, screencaps from a well-meaning and antiquated show that involve a contextually positive racial mis-cast don't strike me as something so offensive that they merit a warning label commonly used for shit like this. Sorry, I guess.
I don't know if this makes sense, but can two people be considered to be in a romantic relationship without any dating/kissing/sex stuff?
OOKKAAAY, it looks like I interpreted your question wrong earlier! Let me try to figure out the disconnect...
First of all, I don't think you can always lump things like kissing, dating, and sex into the same category. Or even kissing and sex (to my knowledge, there are plenty of asexual people who still enjoy kissing, cuddling, dating, etc.)
I guess the confusion comes in because society, the media, and people in general assume romance implies sex. Think about it: if someone tells you Bob and Betty were acting romantic at dinner, you'd probably assume they were banging, right? Aaaand you'd probably be right.
But if you want to get pedantic and parse things out farther than society does - and add a slightly archaic twist - romantic behaviors can just be considered things like physical closeness, emotional intimacy, and/or some flavor of affection and devotion. No sex or desire needed. Based on this more precise definition, you can be romantic with a platonic best friend.
However, I usually only see these distinctions brought up in discussions about asexuality, and for most people, they don't seem to apply. It never enters their minds. Again, in the general usage, romance implies sex, and platonic and romantic are exclusive terms.
But it sounds to me like what you're asking is: can two people be considered romantic... without any apparent romantic or sexual behaviors? Which... yeah, doesn't quite make sense in my head!
But if you mean: can two people be considered romantic without conventional romantic behaviors? Sure! That's how I see the canonical K/S relationship - I think it's fair to interpret them as (non-sexually) romantic based purely on what the show and movies give us. Even though they don't date or kiss, even without reading between the lines or wearing slash goggles, the intimacy is there. They have a romantic friendship (see above definitions and link). Or, in the Modern Homophobic, a "bromance."*
...great, now all of these words seem meaningless. I'm just going to lie down and question the significance of labels for awhile.
*Yes, Modern Homophobic is a language. Like Cyrillic or Coptic. Typical phrases include "I love you - wait, not like that," "I don't care as long as I don't have to see it," and "no homo."
