![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I give you Odocoileus tealiensis, subspecies Meta.
Okay. I don't actually do the straight-out meta thing very often, but this is something I've been thinking about for a while now. I've been holding off because I am possibly the most conflict-averse person in the history of ever, but... well, here goes.
First off, a little disclaiming. I have not seen Torchwood: CoE. While I do have certain opinions based on all the accounts I've seen of it, this post is not actually aimed at the show itself, or even necessarily specific to the reactions that are taking place in response to reactions to that show. (That... might make more sense in a minute. Sorry.) Additionally, while I've enjoyed Torchwood a lot, I've never been particularly vocal about it. So if you're inclined to shout, "But you haven't even watched it!" or "You're not even in the fandom!" you are completely correct.
There aren't any specific spoilers in here,although there might well be in the comments but they're hanging out in the comments.
With all of that junk on what this isn't about out of the way, on with the show.
What this is about is the term 'fannish entitlement', and the uses thereof I've seen lately.
(Just to be clear, the earnest 'I hope RTD dies in a fire!' sentiments are not entitlement; they are batshit crazy. There's a difference.)
The concept of fannish entitlement is an odd one, for me. On the one hand, yeah, there are lines that really, really should never be crossed, and there are people who believe that those lines don't exist. Stalking an actor like a creepy unofficial member of the paparazzi? Entitled. Badgering show writers at cons during their bathroom breaks about how much you thought the B Plot in Episode 42 sucked? Entitled. Showing up at anyone's home, ever? Really, disturbingly entitled.
So, basically, I think there's no question there are definitely entitlement issues between fans and the actual people involved with media production.
What I'm not so sure of is this label being applied to matters between the fans and the show itself.
We don't get to make decisions about the future of the brand, any more than you get to choose whether Coke Classic is going to change its formula next year and ship all over the world as the Newest! Best! beverage since water met ice. We are, however, perfectly allowed to have an opinion on that action, and to voice that opinion both among ourselves and, in the appropriate venues and without going nuts, to the PTB. It's not ungrateful or whiny to do this; it's in the contract.
Yeah, that's right. I said it. The contract.
Media - and television and film in particular - is not by definition pure art. Can it be damned beautiful and transformative? Absolutely. Is it required to be to count as successful? Nope. The fundamental difference is that art is, at its core, about making you feel. There's not any value judgment attached to how it makes you feel; a piece that inspires abject fury is just as worthy as one that fires up every contentment center in your body.
Media is different. When was the last time you walked out of a theater feeling genuinely disgusted with every part of what you'd seen and the entire juggernaut that put it together and thought, Wow, that was amazing. Let's do that again. (Documentaries and based-on-true-story deals don't count, for the purposes of this post. They're greyer territory, and we're pretty much just sticking to the fiction end of the spectrum. Um. Because I said so.)
And that right there, that willingness to do it again, that matters. If you experience the piece once and remember it, art has done its job. If you see one episode of a TV show and remember it until your dying day, but don't watch the next episode, media has failed.
You can pretend all you like that television exists in a vaccum, sealed in with artistic integrity and high ideals. Doesn't make it true.
And we're back to that idea of a contract. Without getting too Rousseau-ian about the whole thing, there's a give-and-take relationship inherent in TV. We give our time and our emotions and our energy (and our spending money), and the PTB give us a show (and many commercials). That show, in the best cases, is woven through with their time and emotions and energy, too, and everybody breaks even or a little better.
Where it gets dicey is when the PTB decide to cut that tie and make the show for themselves, or for a different audience. They're perfectly within their rights to do this, of course; the whole matter isn't actually binding, and they can walk away at any time. The problem is, we're then perfectly within our rights to think this approach is crap, and to say so. We can walk away, too.
As much as we like to write about them, unrequited relationships in real life suck. Giving a part of yourself over and feeling like what you get back is lesser, that's both disappointing and painful. Having that exchange be dismissed or manipulated by the party with power in the relationship? Best case scenario, it makes you seriously unwilling to engage with that party again.
Fandom is all about the talking. We talk when we're thrilled, we talk when we're apprehensive, we talk when we're hungry and in desperate need of caffeine. We talk a lot when we're really, really pissed off. It's what we do. You can certainly be a fan and never discuss the show in question, but if nobody's discussing it, it doesn't have a fandom. (Or, put a different way: What is the sound of one hand clapping? Not a fandom.)
The thing is, I would argue that this is exactly what's special about this format. You don't get this kind of devotion, this kind of love, anywhere else. This relationship, this investment, is what has us learning languages and making costumes and flying cross-country to shake someone's hand. It's what has us writing our own stories, because we want to know what happens outside of the windows we're given.
It's what has us saying, No. You know what? I don't think that was right, and here's why.
That's not entitlement; that's giving a damn.
First off, a little disclaiming. I have not seen Torchwood: CoE. While I do have certain opinions based on all the accounts I've seen of it, this post is not actually aimed at the show itself, or even necessarily specific to the reactions that are taking place in response to reactions to that show. (That... might make more sense in a minute. Sorry.) Additionally, while I've enjoyed Torchwood a lot, I've never been particularly vocal about it. So if you're inclined to shout, "But you haven't even watched it!" or "You're not even in the fandom!" you are completely correct.
There aren't any specific spoilers in here,
With all of that junk on what this isn't about out of the way, on with the show.
What this is about is the term 'fannish entitlement', and the uses thereof I've seen lately.
(Just to be clear, the earnest 'I hope RTD dies in a fire!' sentiments are not entitlement; they are batshit crazy. There's a difference.)
The concept of fannish entitlement is an odd one, for me. On the one hand, yeah, there are lines that really, really should never be crossed, and there are people who believe that those lines don't exist. Stalking an actor like a creepy unofficial member of the paparazzi? Entitled. Badgering show writers at cons during their bathroom breaks about how much you thought the B Plot in Episode 42 sucked? Entitled. Showing up at anyone's home, ever? Really, disturbingly entitled.
So, basically, I think there's no question there are definitely entitlement issues between fans and the actual people involved with media production.
What I'm not so sure of is this label being applied to matters between the fans and the show itself.
We don't get to make decisions about the future of the brand, any more than you get to choose whether Coke Classic is going to change its formula next year and ship all over the world as the Newest! Best! beverage since water met ice. We are, however, perfectly allowed to have an opinion on that action, and to voice that opinion both among ourselves and, in the appropriate venues and without going nuts, to the PTB. It's not ungrateful or whiny to do this; it's in the contract.
Yeah, that's right. I said it. The contract.
Media - and television and film in particular - is not by definition pure art. Can it be damned beautiful and transformative? Absolutely. Is it required to be to count as successful? Nope. The fundamental difference is that art is, at its core, about making you feel. There's not any value judgment attached to how it makes you feel; a piece that inspires abject fury is just as worthy as one that fires up every contentment center in your body.
Media is different. When was the last time you walked out of a theater feeling genuinely disgusted with every part of what you'd seen and the entire juggernaut that put it together and thought, Wow, that was amazing. Let's do that again. (Documentaries and based-on-true-story deals don't count, for the purposes of this post. They're greyer territory, and we're pretty much just sticking to the fiction end of the spectrum. Um. Because I said so.)
And that right there, that willingness to do it again, that matters. If you experience the piece once and remember it, art has done its job. If you see one episode of a TV show and remember it until your dying day, but don't watch the next episode, media has failed.
You can pretend all you like that television exists in a vaccum, sealed in with artistic integrity and high ideals. Doesn't make it true.
And we're back to that idea of a contract. Without getting too Rousseau-ian about the whole thing, there's a give-and-take relationship inherent in TV. We give our time and our emotions and our energy (and our spending money), and the PTB give us a show (and many commercials). That show, in the best cases, is woven through with their time and emotions and energy, too, and everybody breaks even or a little better.
Where it gets dicey is when the PTB decide to cut that tie and make the show for themselves, or for a different audience. They're perfectly within their rights to do this, of course; the whole matter isn't actually binding, and they can walk away at any time. The problem is, we're then perfectly within our rights to think this approach is crap, and to say so. We can walk away, too.
As much as we like to write about them, unrequited relationships in real life suck. Giving a part of yourself over and feeling like what you get back is lesser, that's both disappointing and painful. Having that exchange be dismissed or manipulated by the party with power in the relationship? Best case scenario, it makes you seriously unwilling to engage with that party again.
Fandom is all about the talking. We talk when we're thrilled, we talk when we're apprehensive, we talk when we're hungry and in desperate need of caffeine. We talk a lot when we're really, really pissed off. It's what we do. You can certainly be a fan and never discuss the show in question, but if nobody's discussing it, it doesn't have a fandom. (Or, put a different way: What is the sound of one hand clapping? Not a fandom.)
The thing is, I would argue that this is exactly what's special about this format. You don't get this kind of devotion, this kind of love, anywhere else. This relationship, this investment, is what has us learning languages and making costumes and flying cross-country to shake someone's hand. It's what has us writing our own stories, because we want to know what happens outside of the windows we're given.
It's what has us saying, No. You know what? I don't think that was right, and here's why.
That's not entitlement; that's giving a damn.
no subject
Where it gets dicey is when the PTB decide to cut that tie and make the show for themselves, or for a different audience. They're perfectly within their rights to do this, of course; the whole matter isn't actually binding, and they can walk away at any time. The problem is, we're then perfectly within our rights to think this approach is crap, and to say so. We can walk away, too.
Oh yes. See me walking? I am walking away from the SG universe (that's a pun! I made a pun!) even though SG: Universe might be good (HA!) because I'm furious at how terribly SG: Atlantis was treated: the concept, the characters, and the actors.
CoE: I have seen it and, though it broke my heart, I understand why everything was done. I doubt I'll watch any future series of Torchwood but I don't feel the anger at the show and its producers and writers that I do at SGA. Partly because I wasn't as invested, true, but also because I understood why they did what they did. (Trying not to be spoilery here is awkward.)
Anyway. Well done. I agree.
no subject
I understand why everything was done.
Really? Can you PLEASE explain it to me? I saw it, and I just... I honestly don't get it.
no subject
But about Ianto: I felt that Jack would not have been able to do what he did (how's that for vague and non-spoilery?) if Ianto had been at his side. After so many centuries of life-without-death, Jack isn't quite human anymore, but he isn't yet the all-seeing Face of Boe. His investment with specific individuals will keep him from that, uh, growth, I think.
I found a much better explanation at rm's LJ, here, in case you haven't read that.
no subject
I just don't understand it from a writing/producing perspective: how can you have an ensemble show with two cast members? (Well, I guess three.) How can you expect that your audience can return? Season 2 definitely felt different from season 1-- darker, less irreverent-- and CoE just went to a completely different place. I miss goofy Torchwood.
no subject
no subject
This was definitely written with a fair amount of SG drama on the brain. There wasn't really anywhere to work that discussion into the post, specifically, but it's certainly lurking around in my head, too.
I am walking away from the SG universe (that's a pun! I made a pun!)
Hahaha. You know, I've come to the conclusion that you can only talk about SG:U in written form. Otherwise, the lack of audible capitalization makes things all kinds of confusing. (Also, you could do a whole post on anti-pickup lines based on that title. Just sayin'. *g*)
I'm furious at how terribly SG: Atlantis was treated: the concept, the characters, and the actors.
Yeah. You're not alone. I really want to like SG:U, because hey, more scifi is never a bad thing and there is Lou Diamond Phillips. I'm kind of in the minority, but I even like the visuals so far. I don't want to take it out on the new kid on the team, just because my best buddy got kicked off, you know? On the other hand, the coach is an ass, and I don't trust him in the least. The marketing behind SG:U hasn't done anything to make me think the PTB have clued in at all to their fanbase, and the continued screwing over of everything SG:A isn't helping with my resentment. Ten bucks says LDP bites it in the first ep anyway. *sigh*
CoE: I have seen it and, though it broke my heart, I understand why everything was done.
I am a happy ending person, by nature. I can certainly handle dystopian outlooks, even enjoy them from time to time, but I think my limits are all about the length of the source. Short stories, or limited-run things that I can get through in a brief time, I'm fine with getting a bleaker ending from. It's when I feel like I've invested for the long haul that I get traumatized by the downer stuff.
Knowing that about myself, though, I can chalk it up to personal preference. Personally, I'm not a happy bunny about how things went down. On the other hand, I don't feel invested enough to discuss the larger idea of whether or not this is the direction the show should have taken. It doesn't work for me, but then I'd have to watch it to form more of an opinion than that, and I'm not willing to do that.
On the other other hand - and this one was the impetus behind the original post - I kind of think we all have every right to discuss it, if we so choose. We can't change it, of course, but what's so wrong with talking about it?
(Trying not to be spoilery here is awkward.)
Feel free to be spoilery. I'll edit the post accordingly. :)