poliphilo | Yes, Really

I don't understand! What happened? Did I miss something?

RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!
(being the screaming sound of a Messerschmidt)

Scary!

Oh!

--That was an unfair attack, because it was based on assumptions, not knowledge.

When she said you were a "stereotype," she made it clear that that's who she was attacking: not you, but the stereotype she had made you out to be.

Your pal and admirer, Jackie

Thanks Jackie,

I guess I don't like to be stereotyed. I have worked hard all my life to avoid easy categorization.

I guess I don't like to be stereotyed.

I think simply being male was enough to trigger her hostility.

If she wants to be an effective teacher, if she wants to help people understand her stance, she will need to learn to first ask questions and be certain of her facts before drawing and quartering people. I suspect she simply savors having an agenda and takes pride in her anger.

She could have learned a great deal from you, perhaps even enough to change her currently inflexible posture about men.

Her loss.

P.S. May has drawn me in and captivated me in the first thirty pages of your novel. How I wish I were fierce and wonderful like her! I'm looking forward to going on adventures with her.

And poor Hob, up in the tree...

People with hardline agendas always reserve their greatest anger for their slightly milder or ideologically divergent allies. I'm a menshevik to her bolshevik, a jansenist to her jesuit.

Anger is a big high. So is belonging to a small, ideologically pure sect.

I'm glad you like May and Hob. Hob is also me (of course.)

I do like Hob. Will he die? I hope not. I like the ghosts--

I hope he gets to live in the tree they led him to!

Poor man, everything taken away.

(I'm always fascinated with that theme, which you've now mentioned twice: how does one survive with nothing? Where to start?

I once asked my sister how on earth we wound up with cars and telephones, when all we started out with was earth and trees.

How would I survive, I asked her, and make a sophisticated civilized environment for myself if I landed back in time in some grassy glade with just my bare hands?

Well, she mused, you'd first need to learn how to smelt...

Hob has a long and active life ahead of him....

The starting with nothing thing provides a good deal of the fascination of Robinson Crusoe- and all those other desert island stories. Usually some cheating is involved- like a case of tools and other conveniences gets washed ashore from a wreck. R.C.- as I remember- is supplied with everything from a musket to a Bible.

I love the smelting story.

I enjoyed The Swiss Family Robinson. They really had it made, didn't they? An entire ship full of pots and pans, telescopes, and ducks.

Wouldn't it be fun to live in a treehouse? Especially if you had no choice?

Oh yes.

And the thing about writing novels is that you can play-act that and any other experience.

The Arial to her Helvetica.

But, I think you have succeeded marvelously!:)

I guessed which post had garnered the attack, but had to scroll back to get the details, since when I read it yesterday morning there were no comments on it.

Some people get all worked up over the wrong things. Her accusations and insults were totally uncalled for. Even if she was right (which I don't think she was) she could have made her case in a civil fashion, or asked some tough but polite questions about your attitudes.

I was impressed by the way you maintained the high ground and controlled your temper.

Thanks.

It's the name calling that gets under my skin. I'm prepared to debate anything (I think) and concede that I'm wrong if out-argued.

Actually, in this instance I didn't even want to argue. I befriended my "attacker" in the first place because I found her stance interesting and stimulating.

I actually found what they were saying interesting - I'm a major fan of Buffy and Kill Bill, and a guy, and I have similar qualms.

It's a pity it was an attack and not a discussion.

Yeah, it's interesting. I dunno if you got as far as the interview with Christine Delphy, but the argument there is stimulating. Delphy says that the division between men and women is a matter of class and that if women were given equal pay for their work (including domestic work) the problems of sex/gender would all disappear.

As for Buffy and co- I've been wondering whether there's an equivalent high-profile kick-ass heroine created by a woman- and I can't think that there is.

Except that the character of the Bride is credited on screen as the creation of Q & U (I'm a credits reading nerd) so maybe Uma Thurman had a 50% input. It would be nice to think so.

Thankyou for summing up the Delphy interview ... my French doesn't quite stretch that far. :)

According to the making-of's on my DVDs, The Bride was indeed a co-creation of Uma and Quentin. Unfortunately, the making-of's don't go into very much detail about it, except that it begin while they were filming 'Pulp Fiction'.

I have also read somewhere that Sigourney Weaver ended up having some authorship over Ripley in Alien3, although this must have been largely unofficial, and Alien: Resurrection is, of course, written by Joss Whedon.

I also cannot think of a Buffy equivalent created by a woman, but then maybe looking for an 'equivalent' isn't the right approach. There's certainly action/comic-book heroines created by women, but they tend not to rise to the popular-mythological heights of Xena or Buffy, for all the obvious reasons to do with the industry being patriarchal.

Some of the reading I did in an undergraduate gender studies film course was about the 'last girl' of slasher movies - the single (normally virginal) girl who makes it to the end. This category can be extended to heroines like Ripley, and perhaps even to Buffy and The Bride (who I would venture to call 'post-last girls'). Anyway, to be very simplistic, what some of this material was suggesting is that the 'last girl' is a kind of male protagonist in disguise (she is normally quite androgynous), and amongst other things the last girl allows the (assumed heterosexual, male) audience to experience masochism in ways other texts (which don't substitute/alter the male protagonist) don't allow.

I can see readings like that having something to say about Buffy and The Bride, but I think those two characters also have something a lot more to them and their position is more complex.

If Uma had 50% input into The Bride, she certainly deserves more credit. Buffy, too, while created by Joss, was at least partly authored by women. But hopefully characters like Bufffy will allow the industry to change, so that we don't have to say of the next Buffy "Well, she was *partly authored* by women".

My French was stretched....

That's fascinating about the "last girl".

I've never paid much attention to slasher movies. I watched Scream because it was supposed to be all intelligent and post-modern, but that's about it. The genre just doesn't attract me.

But Buffy, Xena and anything else with a female action hero is very much my thing. I identify with those gals where I don't identify with the poor kid being chased by the evil dude in the mask- no matter how androgynous she is.

But I also identify with the heroine's geeky sidekicks. If anything I'm more Gabrielle than Xena, more Willow than Buffy. So what's all that about?

Maybe it's just that sidekicks are more accessible than superheroes. :)

I also tend to identify more with the sidekicks. But I do find Willow to be one of the most wholly-realized characters I've ever come across, and I think in some ways she had a way more interesting story arc than Buffy.

I agree about Willow. That was a great story arc. And for a geek like me- much more at home with books and computers than martial arts- one I could readily identify with.

Also Allison Hannigan is just so unbelievably cute.

whoa... quite a lot happens in a day's absence from livejournal.

i think that:
-she does make an interesting point about buffy, etc being male constructs. because that calls into question the motives behind strong female characters-- if they're created by men, are they created out of respect for female strength, or out of a sort domination fantasy? what are the intentions? (on the other hand, women could just as easily create strong female characters for the same reasons)
-but all the same, it's unfair of her to say that you shouldn't approve of them for that reason. and also, it's not your fault or (i assuming) your wish that women are marginalized as creative forces in the entertainment industry.

lastly, and most importantly, isn't it ironic that you get attacked for sticking your neck out and exploring these sort of issues? the stereotyped "male" she seems to want to hate would never even think about these things.

Yeah, there's an interesting debate to be had about Buffy and co. Would a female superhero created by a woman be noticeably different?

And I think it sucks that women are so marginalized in the entertainment industry. I am sick of being fed boys-own fantasy. I don't want Bruce Willis in a vest or Stallone in a vest or Brad Pitt in a vest. I want stories in which the women are more than the vest-wearing hero's fashion accessories. Tarantino may be doing it for all the wrong reasons- who knows?- but he has now made three films in a row with a woman doing the heroics. At the very least, it's refreshing.

And it would be even more refreshing if there were female writers and directors making comparable films.

I think Tarantino is motivated by the success of depicting women doing heroics, that people regardless of gender identify easily with The Bride, for example, is a demonstration of precisely how far we've come in terms of how we are willing to see women portrayed. It is worth noting that until recently, nearly the only woman not portrayed in some stereotypical role was Joan of Arc and in many ways she is the literary archetype of the "strong woman." Whether or not Tarantino is serving the goals of a hypothetical feminist movement is ancillary, he has created a rather unique heroine from all I've seen....

There is a sentence that I'm trying to write over and over again, in order to maintain an intellectual air. I think this, which I've heard from a lot of boys whose parents actaully let them see the movie:

"I wish I could kick butt like Uma." And so on to that effect. She's not seen as a model for women, for strong women, or any of that. She is now a model of non-gender, universally acceptable, vicious-yet-merciful, heroic-yet-flawed strength. Period. That she is in fact a "she" almost never plays into it.

Two other women I can think of in this vein are Sigourney Weave in the Alien movies, and Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2.

Is it only science fiction where we see this?!

Detective fiction has some cool classy female characters and, yes, some of them are created by women. I'm thinking particularly of VI Warshawsky- the Chicago p.i. created by Sara Paretsky, and Inspector Jane Tennison (Prime Suspect) the TV policman created by Lynda La Plante and played by Helen Mirren. There are others.

These characters escape from their frames. They become available to everybody. Peter Pan, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, and now- the Bride. It hardly matters who authored them. They exist. They speak to our needs. Arguing against them is like arguing against the human race.

In the past almost all these archetypal figures were male. It's a sign of the times, and a hopeful sign, that some of the ones who are coming through now are female.

I videotaped "The West Wing" a couple of weeks ago, and I'm just now getting caught up. At one point, CJ Craig, the 6 ft tall press secretary gets promoted to chief of staff. One of the younger guys congratulates her "on behalf of men who have WonderWoman fantasies". I thought it was funny, and it reminded me of your comment.

Ah yes, Wonderwoman. She was always a little too cute to be quite convincing.

That she is in fact a "she" almost never plays into it.

Forgive me for just catching up with this thread, and perhaps that is why I have no idea if you're speaking of yourself or the boys you mention who adore The Bride. But how can the fact that she is a woman never play into this interpretation? That is ridiculous. The entire film(s) is about female strength, connections (however subtle) between women, and the fact that a man she loved tried to kill her while she was with his child. She is a woman. She is a mother. And she is strong.

But how can anyone claim that the fact that she is a woman would not "play into it" unless they were 12 years old and had no training nor experience in terms of gender and power in our society right now?

None of those facts need to play into people's overall perception. I'm reminded of other instances, such as Charlemagne and Baligant from the the Song of Roland, who are precisely the same except that Charlemagne gets help from Gabriel at the end of the battle. That fact never seems to play in either. So while the facts of what is going on may be undeniable, that does not mean they are actually recognized or truly assimilated. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of the audience probably remembers more about the fight choreography than the plot line.

Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of the audience probably remembers more about the fight choreography than the plot line.

You're probably right.

Unfortunately.

what would also be refreshing is if films were created and marketed to a unisex audience.

with most media, "the viewer" is generally assumed to be male (unless the medium in question is romance novels or something of that sort). so while uma thurman may kick butt as the bride, she also has to be sexy uma thurman to appeal to the "male gaze". i guess the best example of this is lara croft from tomb raider. i would say linda hamilton from terminator had one of the most progressive female roles- because she was tough and determined and survived- and yet also had a sexual relationship without (in my opinion-- but then i also havent seen it in several years) really having her sexuality exploited for the audience.

also: when i imagine myself as a protagonist, i imagine myself as a dude. however, i think this has more to do with the fact that we're all conditioned to regard male-ness as neutral, and female-ness as something different.

Sexy AND young.

It irritates me that Sean Connery is still playing action heroes at 70 while most women get stuck with little old lady roles by the time they're 50.

Why can't we see Meryl Streep hanging off buildings or wielding a light sabre?

or in a similar vein, BUST magazine made the excellent point that when a movie script calls for an ugly fat dude, producers hire an ugly fat dude. but when the script calls for an ugly fat chick, we have charlize theron gain weight and make herself unattractive. can you imagine brad pitt gaining fifty pounds for a part that should be played by jack black? no. but somehow we can only stand to have an unattractive female protagonist if we know that it's a disguise.

And the parameters of beauty are so narrow. Most of the actresses who succeed in Hollywood conform to the same long-leggedy, high-cheek-boned type.

or, it's not so much imagining myself as a protagonist. i just have little interest in writing about female characters. maybe i dont find women as interesting, because i am one.

That's also a factor in my preferring to write about women- the fascination of the "other".

Whatever her criticism of your work, she should be reminded of two important things:

(1) It is your work. Inherently, it explores the issues you desire to explore, in the way you wish to explore them, and to the ends you wish to achieve. Your work has no obligation to serve any revolution or movement, much less to serve it in whatever way a self-appointed gatekeeper of ideology deems. To make arbitrary criticism based on one's own experiences and preferences, especially without having read the work in question, is to engage in prejudice and bigotry, to further place that critique in a pejorative context is far beyond inappropriate. Which is not a bad segue to:

(2) If the person is going to pretend to the title of literary critic, especially if harsh ideological dialectics are to be applied, it behooves the would-be critic to take on the character of academic discourse as opposed to the coarser, less productive methods of Internet newsgroups. The procedures of argument in academe have been carefully constructed to make express, productive argumentation possible and to avoid the pitfalls of human tendencies to insult, belittle, and slander their opponents. It is worthwhile for the critic to remember that both the writer and the critic are engaged in furthering art and ideas generally and that critique ought always serve this purpose. Herding people into a party line has no place in legitimate discussion. That said, ad hominem attacks and condescension have less place than that and bring down the character and integrity of discourse.

Woo. Lengthy.

Better to write something worthy of criticism (or even diatribes) than to write something everyone reads and then immediately forgets. :)

Well yes. The conversation that has been kicked off by this is really interesting.

Wow, I just read the comments that I think are the ones in question. I do "sort of" see what she means, but she doesn't know you at all, and frankly, while I don't really know you either, I think that there are plenty of guys on LJ who better deserve such attacks. I don't know you in person, obviously, but from reading your entries and comments, you seem to me to be anything but a chauvinist or a man who wants women to feel inferior. Even though I admit that many men scare me, I hate these so-called feminists who attack men for simply being men. Like that equates them with misogynist pigs. I also commend you for seeing it as interesting and lively. I'd probably be annoyed if I saw something like that left in my journal :)

Thanks, Jess.

Yeah, well no-one likes being shouted at, but I've gotten over that bit now- and the conversation that has developed since has been fascinating.

I see what she's getting at too. It's just that she's so bloody angry.

Yeah, that's just it: she doesn't even freakin' know you! ;)

She's angry at men. I am a man. Therefore she's angry at me. I get the feeling there's nothing I could do or say that would make much difference.

I have posted my sentiments on the topic of this altercation, but I will do it again. You have nothing to apologize about. You were accosted in the very haven of your thoughts by a belligerent with little consideration for you as an individual.

It's intrusive and unfortunate, but I am glad that you are not locking your journal over it. I was fortunate enough to be able to find you because it was open and because your thoughts, your wonderful thoughts, drew me in. I would hate to think that this would be refused to others due to this incident.

You are a great man! You really are! We love you madly and dearly and this Thanksgiving, I toast to knowing you and having found you in this corner of LiveJournal! Here is to a year of less drama from pugnacious soapboxers in our comments section--we have communities for that.

PS: it should be heartening to remember that the Messerschmitts, regardless of their popularity in WWII's first round, fell in the shadow of Allied aircraft at the closing stages of the war. [Wink]

No there's no way I'd lock the journal.
The unpleasantness of being attacked is more than outweighed by the pleasure of meeting such fascinating people as yourself.

The feeling is mutual!

Yes, Really

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject