You are viewing silent_lorelei

About this Journal
Current Month
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031
May. 17th, 2013 @ 02:45 pm Scion Writeup #58: Hell Hath No Fury (Part 2)
Current Mood: anxiousanxious
Current Music: Shawn Colvin - Sunny Came Home
Tags: ,
Contrary to popular opinion, things do not get better for Alison. They get worse.

Crime and Punishment.Collapse )

Run, everybody. Don't stop and think about it, just run.
About this Entry
May. 17th, 2013 @ 02:43 pm Scion Writeup #58: Hell Hath No Fury (Part 1)
Current Mood: sadsad
Current Music: Emilie Autumn - Fight Like a Girl
Tags: ,
Okay, so I'm not supposed to be writing about Alison right now. I'm supposed to be doing other things. It happened anyway.

Of all of these characters, I think Alison was the one that we all knew was doomed from the start. She couldn't bend, she wouldn't break, and neither would anyone else around her. She was an embodiment of reason and order, saddled with a constant reminder of chaos and madness, tied to two divine figures whose moral ambiguities left her no options. Even Aurora had a better chance at life, and that's a depressing thought.

In this story: repentence, confession, determination, and very, very dangerous choices in allies.

Adrasteia Rising.Collapse )

The adventures of Alison's blinding obsessions were too much for the journal. Part two in a second!
About this Entry
May. 4th, 2013 @ 07:15 pm Finding Jenny
Current Mood: nostalgicnostalgic
Current Music: Amy Grant - If These Walls Could Speak
I want to show you guys something. It's a story about my mother, and it's a story about me.

I was always a reader of fantasy, even when I was a kid. I got the taste from my mother, who devoured every kind of fantasy from high to humorous, but I never really thought about the fact that I got it from her; it was just something that we liked, and it wasn't until I was older that it dawned on me that not everyone, in fact, felt the same. It was the same way a strawberry gets its seeds from its parent plant; of course they come from the plant, which grew from such a seed itself, but the strawberry is unlikely to spend much time thinking about it.

I loved Tolkien, and still do. When we were children, my mother read The Hobbit to us, as bedtime stories or at the end of long nights when we still weren't asleep. I remember lying on the floor, too fidgety for bed, listening to her; I faintly remember the cover of the edition she read, grey and pencilled art of a mountain range, and the ink drawings inside that she showed us. We also watched the animated movies based on the books, Rankin/Bass's stylized and spider-creased animations of round little hobbits and feral, cat-like dragons, and I lost sleep over the horror of the Great Goblin or the Watchers. I still watched them, though - we all did. They were our favorites, I think, for a very long time.

When I was older, I filched my mother's editions of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion and read them in my bunkbed, all of eight years old. She was surprisingly patient about this, and answered my obviously amorphous, not-quite-understanding child's questions about them. Why are the orcs afraid of the elves, mommy? "Because they used to be elves, honey, and it hurts them to remember." Why are the ents so slow about everything, mommy? "Because they're very old, and they don't think about hurrying like younger people do." Why was that orc scared of Sam when he held the ring, mommy? "Because it's the ring of the one who made him, baby, and they're all afraid of him." I didn't know what her answers meant, most of the time; I wasn't ready to understand things like racial guilt, cosmic sin or the flow of time. She answered me honestly anyway, and because I didn't understand what she said, I kept reading them, over and over, until at some point I was old enough that I did begin to get glimmers of the answers.

When I was a teenager, I went to the library to get some books about Tolkien; I'd read the man himself plenty of times, but I wanted to know more about it and I loved (and still do love) to hear what other people said it might mean or what history or mythology it might have come from. I went to the nonfiction stacks in the back of our little public library, alone, and I found two books. They looked old and authoritative, and those were the things I wanted, and I took them home.

The Coralville Public Library was (and still is) a small place with a small collection, a little small-towny even by Iowan standards, but even they had converted from the paper card catalogs to the computers and scannable codes a few years earlier. There was a shiny new tag on the inside of each book, below the scannable barcode, where the due date could still be stamped. For most of the books, there was also still a pocket on the opposite side, where the old sign-out card for the library had been kept, and if the books weren't in much demand and seldom borrowed, many of them still had that card, waiting patiently in the sleeve, the signatures of patrons long past like secret codes, saying, here, this one, this is important.

I barely glanced at the card in the first book, but the second one caught my eye and made me stop; and then that was enough to pull the first one out of its sleeve, where the signatures were hidden, so that I held both of them in my hands. I had forgotten about these cards, now that I'm fifteen years older and worried about things like rent and databases and a masters degree, but I found them today while I was cleaning, and they made me stop and hold them in each hand, just as I did when I was a child.



My mother signed these cards on August 16th of 1974, and renewed them three times each. She signed them again on July 2nd of 1978, and renewed them again once. In August of 1974, she would have been fourteen years old; when I held the cards in my hand, it was August of 1998, exactly twenty-four years later, and I was four months shy of my own fourteenth birthday.

We are all anxious as teenagers to prove that we are not our mothers; we go to great lengths to emphasize our differences, to force the world to see that we are different people, that we are nothing alike, that we are not just little clones but forces of our own, to be reckoned with and spoken to as ourselves. We point to our mothers and say, "She's old, she's tired, she's fat, she's snappish, she's sad all the time, she's angry all the time, she's out of touch, she doesn't understand the world." We point to ourselves, the center of our frantically-spinning youthful universes, and we say, "I am none of those things. I am myself. We are not the same."

But when my mother was my age, she went to the same little small-town library, walked to the same stacks in the nonfiction section, and borrowed the same two books. I don't know if she came alone, riding her bicycle down sidewalks in the August heat, leaving behind sisters who were beloved but too needy, too vocal, too young for a budding teenager, but I think she might have. I don't know if her librarian looked like the one that stamped these, or if the stamp were the same, or if the carpet was still that faded green, weary and earth-old as the building itself. But she came as I came, and she chose what I chose, and she did both because she wanted to and because of who she was, and for no other reason.

Or it's the other way around. I came as she came, and I chose what she chose. She was there first, my mother, on the day that the Ramones played their first concert, in the week when Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, in the year that we sent our first and only spacecraft to faraway Mercury. She was there, thinking what I thought and wanting what I wanted. She was different from her own mother, just as I was different from her, but I stood in the same place, for the same reason, out of the same love, twenty-four years later.

And I thought: I am the same as she is.

And I thought: Not Jennifer Myers, my mother, a woman who survived a permanent mangling of her hand in a machinery accident, who made it through a bad marriage and a worse divorce, who bore four children and dedicated her life to watching them grow, to supplying their needs, to reading them The Hobbit when they could not sleep. Jenny Hudson, the girl that I never met, fourteen and years from meeting my father, years from learning about children, years from everything except for the mountain-sprawled vistas of another world and the shimmering, elusive elfsong and muttered, deep-earth dwarfchant of the stories she read in books.

And I thought: I am not the same as my mother, but neither was Jenny. Neither are they, nor I, different.

I stole both cards. It was not a conscious decision, and it didn't occur to me until years later that it was, in fact, stealing. It was simply that they belonged to me; of all people, they must surely belong to me. The library no longer used them, but had kept them as a faithful custodian all those years, waiting for me to come to the stacks and take them with me, waiting for me to find her. Waiting for me to remember Jenny, who was gone but still waiting, in the cracks and crevices, the corners and memories, reading to her children on a dark night, telling them the truths of adulthood when they asked with child-smooth faces upturned, waiting under the closed cover of a book.

I signed both cards, fourteen years old, when I took them, on the back so that I would not disturb the history on them, and I renewed them three times each.

My handwriting looks like hers.
About this Entry
Apr. 30th, 2013 @ 06:58 pm The Goddess Who Doesn't Do Anything
Current Mood: mischievousmischievous
Current Music: Veggitales - The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything
Several months ago, I got a Tumblr account so I could see what the fussing was about (and follow my sister, who is fabulous). This turned out to be a bad idea. As far as I can tell, Tumblr is a flailing, screaming swamp of fandoms, all flailing and screaming at one another while judging said flailing and screaming and then posting overly histrionic meta about how their favorite characters were just very traumatized as children and should be coddled with soup. It's very disorienting to those of us used to reality.

And while normally I ignore the internet's ridiculousness - I'm looking at you, Reddit, who I do not even frequent because you are a cesspool - Tumblr's gotten through my shell somehow. Not by being, you know, good. Not by making me want to blog there (I don't and I doubt I'll start). By talking about things I love and then being WRONG. WHAT. STOP BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET, YOU HEATHENS. I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSES.

Today's Backlash Theatre episode will be about Norse mythology. If you're on Tumblr, I'm so dreadfully sorry; it's probably not you I'm advocating being set on fire. It's the eternally-propagating ignorance. I want to burn it.

Let's start with Norse mythology, because I always start with Norse mythology. See, Tumblr fucking loves Marvel's movies, especially Thor and The Avengers, and a disproportionate amount of this is because they love Tom Hiddleston's epically badass portrayal of Loki (and that Hemsworth guy, he is not so bad to watch either, right?). There's nothing wrong with any of this. I also love Marvel's movies, not to mention Tom Hiddleston's badass Loki. But, as people do, they frequently discuss Loki in all his incarnations across all of history and pop culture, and while there are the normal disconnects between Marvel canon and mythological canon that you'd expect (and that's fine, too - we're not all scholars of the Edda here), things always break down to the I Must Speak Now level with one character: Sigyn.

For those who are unaware, Sigyn is Loki's wife in Norse mythology. She also appears in the Marvel comics, though she has not to date turned up in any of the movies. And for the past several months, Tumblr has been psychotically yelling about Sigyn whenever the subject of her character comes up. There are a lot of weird things being said, but the ones that make me keyboard my face are these major recurring themes:

A) Sigyn is the goddess of fidelity in Norse mythology.
B) Sigyn is a strong, independent woman and Marvel couldn't even try to put her in the movies because she is just too fierce, yo!
C) Sigyn and Loki and their children Vali and Narvi are a beautiful and loving family unit and a delightful standard of domestic bliss (until everything goes horribly wrong, but that's Odin's fault, THE GIANT PILE OF SWAMP WASTE).

I just... you guys, my blood pressure. Do you know all the ways this is wrong, stupid and gives me a headache? Well, you're about to.

Actually, Sigyn is not the goddess of fidelity. In point of fact, she is not the goddess of anything; she is so minor a figure in Norse mythology that she's practically a footnote, and we have no surviving record or evidence of her ever being worshiped in any fashion or as patron of any idea. Sigyn certainly existed and was believed to be a goddess, but that is motherfucking it, literally. And in case you think I'm just yelling at the internet like the senile old woman I am, I'm going to come at you with textual evidence, so I hope you're ready for the motherfucking Bellows translations to blow your eyepieces out. I'm putting here, in their sum total entirely, every mention of Sigyn that occurs in the annals of Norse mythology.

Nordic poetic goodness, but is something missing...?Collapse )

And do you know what, my friends? That's it. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL THERE IS. She's mentioned a grand total of eight times, EVER, IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and of those times she is only actually present and doing something ONCE. That is the ENTIRE SHOW. Sigyn is not only not an important enough goddess to be worshiped as the patron of fidelity, she's not important enough to be worshiped as anything. Hell, she's not important enough to actually be in Norse mythology except as an accessory to Loki that one time. If Norse mythology were a movie, Sigyn would have no lines, and she would be being paid only slightly more than Beerwench #5.

Now, obviously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Marvel fandom talking about Sigyn as the goddess of fidelity in context of the Marvel movies and comics, because in Marvel's reimagining of the myths, that's what she is. It's not hard to see why the writers of the comics put a lady who spends most of her immortal life trying to stop acid from dripping on her husband's face in the role of a goddess of fidelity; I mean, that's some faithful shit there. And there's also nothing wrong with wanting to envision Sigyn that way in your fanfiction/hopes for a new movie/personal roleplaying, or whatever else.

But seriously, stop saying that Sigyn is the "goddess of fidelity" in Norse mythology. She is not. She is certainly not - in fact, if anyone's a goddess of wifely faithfulness, it's actually Sif (for a double mind-blown whammy: Sif is not in any way, shape or form a warrior in Norse mythology. She stays home and has babies and never so much as looks at a weapon in any Norse myth. Oh, and she also has no lines. Sorry, everyone). If I see one more person justify how Sigyn must appear in the movies as a saintly figure who brings perfect marital joy to our depressed antihero because that's her embodiment in Norse mythology, I will stab everyone in the world in the neck. (And seriously, guys, if your reason for wanting a lady to be with a dude basically boils down to "she's faithful to him and that's all a man could want out of a woman because as we all know the vagina being unsullied by any other male touch is the most important quality any female can ever have", maybe sit down and examine your brains a bit. These characters may have been invented in the dark ages, but we don't live there no more.)

That was all addressing point A, but you guys can probably see why point B is also a load of hogwashy hooey. Sigyn is not a "strong, independent woman", and Marvel is not "afraid to put her in the movies" because they couldn't handle how awesome she is, nor does anyone need to panic because they might "ruin her character". I hate to break it to you, kids, but she doesn't have a character in Norse mythology. She's a name occasionally used to identify other people. She's a wife attached to a much more important husband. She's a bowl-holder, people. If you try to claim that Sigyn's character in Norse mythology is too much of a forward-thinking badass for Marvel, you need to go to your room. (And I hate to tell you this, but Sigyn in the Marvel comics is no firebrand of feminine equality, either. A dude tricks her into marrying him by murdering her real fiance and masquerading as him, and she basically says, "Welp, being a wife trumps all of my personal concerns, guess I'm your wife forever." Fan yourself, the feminism's getting too thick to see through.)

Does that mean that Sigyn, if she does appear in the Marvel movies, shouldn't be a badass lady who knows her own mind and takes no shit? Hell, no, it does not! I want Sigyn - and any other character, for that matter - to be well-written, interesting, important and exciting if she's going to be on my screen, and I applaud anyone who wants the same or who plays her as such in their own creative projects. But again, bitches, when you tell other people they're wrong because your portrayal of Sigyn is the one that's true-to-ancient-mythology, you are being asses. Don't be asses.

Oh, yeah, and point C. You tired of me telling you about Norse mythology yet? TOO BAD. I don't even know who thought the nuclear family unit of Loki, Sigyn, Narvi and Vali was some kind of recipe for domestic bliss and a model of mythology's happiest family before Odin peed all over it, but they were smoking crack. Actually, I assume this comes part and parcel from the idea of Sigyn as goddess of fidelity; if you think a lady is goddess of being faithful and devoted to her family, it stands to reason said family is probably pretty great, at least if you're a fan of that idea of good mothering = always good family unit no matter who else is in it. But, like everything else, it's a barrel of dumbs.

As you saw above, Sigyn appears basically no times in Norse mythology, so she's hardly setting an example of anything whatsoever, let alone family life. You'll also notice that that quote from Gylfaginnig is the only time any children are mentioned in context with her, and that's because it's the only time Norse mythology ever says she even has kids. And, because Norse mythology don't give no shits about Sigyn, it's the same thing: mentioned his name and that he was her son, went home and got drunk with the beerwenches. And if that's the only mention of Sigyn having kids, and it only mentions Narvi, guess what? That's right! We actually don't know if Vali even is her son, because we only ever hear him referred to as Loki's. Sure, he might be, and most of us assume he is because of the mind-numbing lack of evidence to tell us one way or the other, but he could just as easily be a child with anyone else (it's not like Loki is rocking a lot of sexual faithfulness, you know?). And if we can't even accurately be sure that the kid is EVEN RELATED TO SIGYN, how the dick do you people keep coming up with the idea that this is a family unit of the ancient tales, filled with love and reciprocal hugging?

(You want it to get better? Actually, we're not even sure if Loki had a son named Vali at all. It's equally possible that Snorri, the recorder of the Edda, was confused by the issue of Odin's son Vali, who was born to avenge Baldur's death by killing Hod, and accidentally invented a whole extra Vali out of translation mishaps.)

(And this is doubly confusing because for a long time Narvi and Vali were totally absent from the Marvel universe and thus none of this could be coming from there, and when they were finally introduced in the 90s, Vali wasn't Sigyn's son at all but rather the child of Loki and a mortal. This shit isn't even canon for Marvel craziness. What the hell, Tumblr.)

The answer is that it is not; like most things in Norse mythology, people who aren't the main acting gods are unimportant window-dressing, and so it is with Loki's family. They are never mentioned, never do anything, have no personalities and are entirely unimportant to everything except the final punishment of Loki, where their job is to underscore how badly he's being chastized for his misbehavior (Sigyn by emphasizing the horror of the poison, and the son[s] by taking one of the most important facets of Norse life, the continuation of the line through sons, away from the condemned god).

And, again, that doesn't mean you can't love this Loki family unit and hug it all the way to the bank! You can invent whatever beautiful, wonderful, crazy or off-the-wall scenarios and personalities you want when you're creating based around characters from anywhere, and nobody can tell you you can't. You can do whatever you want, write whatever you want, art whatever you want, feel whatever you want.

But what you cannot do is tell other people you are the authority on these characters because that's how it was in The Original Norse(TM), or walk around smugly telling people how beautiful the old legends were with their tales of love, devotion and sassy goddesses thereof. You're wrong, you're making other people wrong, you're spreading misinformation, and you're both denying the ancient legends the chance to say the things they were really saying and denying yourself the ability to take credit for your creativity.

Stop it. Seriously. I am not a lady from an ancient Norse poem, Tumblr, but I have read them and I have had enough of your tomfoolery. Own your creativity. Stop being shit-faced wrong about history and mythology. I will break jaws.
About this Entry
Mar. 30th, 2013 @ 10:55 am This is an appreciation post for sexy Indian clothes
Current Mood: sexy
Current Music: Sting - Roxane
Tags: ,
Okay, so I'm not writing for Mohini right now - I'm still trucking through the seemingly endless forest of Woody's problems post-well-dive. But I'm taking a break anyway for a very important post: sherwani porn.

Seriously. Look at these dudes. This is what Mohini's patronage looks like.Collapse )

I mean, seriously. I miss writing about Mohini and her sexy exploits.
About this Entry
Feb. 25th, 2013 @ 06:05 pm The Phantom Project: Masked Obsession by Jeffrey Love
Current Mood: disappointeddisappointed
Current Music: The Phantom of the Opera - Down Once More
Sometimes I regret how awesome I am at the internet.


Masked Obsession: A Retelling of the Phantom of the Opera by Jeffrey Love, 2007
Grade: D-


I debated a long time over whether or not to completely fail this book. I eventually decided to be charitable and keep it in the D range, but it avoided my deepest displeasure by the whiskery hairs of its chin.

We're continuing the parade of self-published Phantom-based novels with this one, and it was one of those elusive vanishing ones; published via Lulu, it was there when I started the Project up but mysteriously vanished some time in the last year or two, removed from all booksellers and mentioned only on internet aggregate sites where its withdrawal couldn't be hidden from the data miners. I don't know if the author decided it wasn't making any money, lost interest in it, or decided to yank it because he no longer wanted to be associated with it, but in any case it's basically unavailable to the masses now.

But I'm not the masses. I'm a cyberspace ninja with a black belt in search-fu, and I got hold of a copy of it anyway. Which only felt like a victory until I tried to read the thing and started suffering.

Down once more to the dungeon of copyright infringement.Collapse )

This book is a perfect object lesson in the first two commandments of derivative literature: Thou Shalt Not Plagiarize, and Thou Shalt Not Exactly Retell the Original. Nothing in it is interesting, exciting, emotional or worthwhile; it's a passionate waste of space, an unexcitig hymn to Love's enjoyment of a musical that does not pass any of that enjoyment on to his readers. It is as dull as dirt and twice as unoriginal, and only the hints of writerly potential that crop up now and then save it from the bottom of the heap.

Incidentally, for a while Love also had a second book floating around the internet, entitled Christopher and billed as a homosexual romance combination of the Phantom story and the Beauty and the Beast fable. Which sounds way more interesting than this novel, right? Alas, it, too has vanished from the face of the internet, and this time I wasn't able to find a copy for review, so for now I continue to not have any versions of the story that really strongly explore homosexuality. Le sigh. For those interested, there is one rather glowing review of it online, but that may be all we ever learn about it.

(Cross-posted from The Phantom Project.)
About this Entry
Feb. 21st, 2013 @ 09:21 am We meet again, MLIS
Current Mood: determineddetermined
Current Music: Queen - Princes of the Universe
Here I was coming in to post a hopeful entry about change for the future, and LiveJournal had force-converted me to their hideous new posting format. Now I hate change again. Way to go, LJ.

Grad school and I have a troubled, tempestuous relationship. It changes the rules on me a lot, and sometimes takes unexpected vacations, and sometimes makes completely unreasonable financial demands. After the heavy bruising sustained in my abusive relationship with undergrad studies (oh my GOD, student loans, calm it down!), plus my past study abandonment when I was forced to move for financial reasons and so on, it's hard to open myself up to love again. Sallie Mae has forced me to never stray from the sidewalk.

So this year I will have gone three rounds with grad school, and that use of the future perfect is not an accident: I just finished preliminary application for school again. You and me, grad school. Cage match, one winner, no other survivors. Library science is a hardcore field and I am a hardcore lady.

I can tell I've been out of school for a while because I'm thoroughly nervous and self-examining about the process in a way I never was back in the day. What if they don't like me? (I went to their informational meeting. They like me.) What if I don't measure up to their standards? (My GPA and GRE scores are high. I'll measure up.) What if I can't handle schoolwork and a full-time job at the same time? (I worked two jobs during undergrad. I can handle it.) I am assailed by self-doubt for no particularly good reason.

There are more reasonable things to worry about, of course. If I don't get enough grant/assistantship/scholarship money, I probably flat won't be able to afford to go, period, which would be pretty depressing after all this buildup. (Guys! I would be an awesome librarian! Please let me into your profession!) My company does offer tuition reimbursement, but I'd need to stay employed with them for at least two years after completing my degree, and I'm not sure I want to lock myself into the job that doesn't pay enough or excite me when the whole point is to be able to do something that pays better and I enjoy more. I'm also worried about being able to spend enough time with John; I know I'm fully capable of working a full-time job, going to full-time classes and assistantshipping on the side, but I'm not sure I can do all that and actually see my light of life, who already spends some weeks feeling kind of neglected when I stagger home from work and fall over instead of saying hi to him. Work 8 to 5, class 5:30 to 9, then homework - when will I hang out with him, or anybody else, for that matter? It's only a couple of years, but that's a lot longer than it sounds when one person is on full-time alert and the other on full-time disgruntlement.

Sigh. When did I turn into such a worry-oriented fog machine? This is exciting and I am excited. When John and I went to the departmental information meeting, we sat in a classroom and listened to an old librarian in a sweatervest drone on for a couple of hours about library politics and modern technology, and it was entirely enchanting. I could have asked him to adopt me, I was so pleased. John, who spent the whole time in a haze of boredom, playing Ticket to Ride and trying to subtly encourage me to get ready to leave (up to and including passing notes like we were avoiding teacher notice in the fourth grade), groaned once we left the building and said in his most put-upon tones, "That was the single most boring event I have ever encountered. Could they have made library stuff sound more uninteresting?"

"Honey," I said, "I loved that. It was everything I wanted it to be. I want to go to there."

"It was just a crochety old guy in a corduroy suit complaining about how hard it is to be a librarian!" he said.

"Baby, I am that crochety old man. He is my spirit animal. If you can't love him, you can't love me."

"I know," he said, long-suffering in defeat. "Let's go get some pizza, old lady."
About this Entry
Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 05:18 pm I wonder if I repeat myself this much in real life
Current Mood: relaxedrelaxed
Current Music: Yasushii Ishi - Logos Naki World
Tags:
The internet loves to challenge me.

Today's writing meme is for those who write series or sequential fiction. Take the first line of each of your stories, chapters or novels and put them in chronological order. Pick out your favorite lines and articulate why you like them. See what the whole picture looks like - are you repeating yourself too much?

You asked for it, internet. Here goes nothin'.

This is both unnecessary and hilarious.Collapse )

You guys, I have written a lot of stories.

I'm not sure I can see much of a pattern, except that I apparently fucking love using the story's protagonist's name in the first sentence whenever possible. Also, I love commas.

I think my personal favorite first lines are probably 31 and 53, because they just delights me, but honorable mention for hilarity should go to 23, 24, 36, 64 and 69. Also, special Obviousness Award to 29 and 44 (especially when taken together!).

Actually, now that I look at it, it looks like I tend to do a three-beat sentence rhythm whenever I don't do a flat statement. I wonder if that needs correcting.

I could have spent this time working, guys.
About this Entry
Jan. 28th, 2013 @ 12:00 pm I Live on Angel One
Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful
Current Music: The Scarlet Pimpernel - Lullabye
This weekend, John and I had date night, which means we ordered pizza and watched Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes until we passed out, like you do when you're broke nerds. It's been a really long time since I saw TNG, and I've never watched it all the way through with the eyes of an adult before. Which is probably why one of the episodes, "Angel One", has activated all my ponderment sensors.

For those who haven't seen the episode, the basic premise is that the characters visit a world called Angel One, where the women are the more physically powerful and dominant sex and the men are considered weaker, more feeble-minded and less fit for important responsibilities. They must then deal with the problems of not being taken seriously by a government that doesn't respect their male commanding officers, and of helping an underground male resistance group that's attempting to fight against the status quo.


The tall, physically imposing women of Angel One with a short, carefully-groomed manservant


Like most Star Trek plots, it's an obvious ploy to discuss a social issue - in this case, sexism - by putting the characters in a parallel situation but using the trappings of space aliens and science fiction to avoid shoving it too strongly in the viewer's face. It's still completely obvious (this is still the first season of TNG, after all, before the writing team managed to get things under control), but it allows the show to talk about the issue without sermonizing directly to the audience or forcing them to feel uncomfortable about it. If the audience recognizes what's going on, great! Maybe they'll see the point of the episode and think about it! If they don't - or don't want to - then they can still enjoy it as escapist fantasy. Everybody wins, and this kind of plot is a longstanding tradition of Star Trek in all its incarnations.

The problem with "Angel One" is not that it doesn't mean well, because it does. It's not even that it's overly obvious, although it is. It's that, watching it as a woman, I could not help but spend the entire episode strongly aware that it had been written by a man and was intended for male consumption, and that it did not actually address sexism from a female perspective at all. I didn't even have to look the writer up to know that he was male (Patrick Barry, for the interested); the episode's inability to actually touch on the core problems of sexism made it blindingly clear that it wasn't being written by someone who was subject to those problems.

The issues are myriad and fundamental. Not a single one of these supposedly powerful, traditionally in-control women ever displays even a hint of powerful body language. They stand with their arms crossed defensively in front of them; they refuse to make eye contact when someone is telling them something they don't like; the directing even places them below the men whenever possible, so that even though they're towering a head above their male counterparts when standing, they still have to look coquettishely up from their seats to talk to the Enterprise crew. The episode explains to us that because the female of the species evolved as physically larger, stronger and more capable than the male, their society has naturally evolved with the females in charge of and providing for the males, but that supposed physical power is never present. When these women get angry, they speak sharply, but they never yell. When they physically confront men who they are angry with - furious, in fact - they never close the personal space gap, never attempt to physically intimidate them, and never use their height to their advantage. The episode tells us that they are used to being the physical powerhouses of their planet, but their actions consistently say otherwise.


This is what it looks like when the queen of the planet is mad at a dude. She's on the other side of the room, in a defensive posture, not even looking at him head-on.


And as a woman watching that, how can I describe my frustration? As a physically small, less-than-strong person who has spent my whole life knowing that men could throw me over their shoulders and there wouldn't be much I could do about it, who lives with the chilling knowledge that my comparative physical weakness means that I could be assaulted, battered, hurt at any time thanks to my place on the physical power scale, how can I describe how disheartening it was to watch women who were supposedly above and outside that fear behave exactly the way I do? They have no fear of being assaulted in their everyday lives; they know they're the pinnacle of physical power, that they can take care of themselves, that they're strong. Why are they averting their eyes, backing off from physical confrontations, curling up on themselves in unconscious fear when voices start to raise? Why are they exactly like me, when they have a physical freedom I can only imagine?

Star Trek isn't trying to say that women always act that way because that's just how women are. It's just not thinking about it.

Then there's the society of Angel One, which the writers take care to present as in every way parallel to our own problems with sexism (other than the weird clothes and transporter rooms, of course). Women wear clothing that covers most of their bodies and is sharply angled, suggesting power; men, who are considered delicate and are sexually objectified, wear sparkly colors and open-waisted shirts to show some skin. Look, say the writers - look at how the men are being treated like sexual objects, and the women are obviously in power! We understand your plight, modern women, and we are showing it to the world by turning it on its head!

But they aren't, not really. The episode's shorthand for the weaker, fairer sex is universally "feminine"; they demonstrate that the men of Angel One are the gentler and oppressed sex because they're beautiful and have elfin features, because they take careful care of their appearance for the pleasure of their women, because they spritz perfume on themselves from crystal atomizers and carefully shave their skin smooth. But there's no corresponding "masculinity" from the women of Angel One - they're also uniformly beautiful and desirable, with carefully teased hair, perfectly manicured nails, appreciatively spoken about by the male Enterprise crew from day one. If you're going to claim that they have no need to objectify themselves for the male eye because they've always been the dominant gender, why don't they have more utilitarian haircuts, different standards of attractiveness, more variation in body type than "Amazonian supermodel"? Why aren't they free to be whatever weight and shape they want, if they're really from a culture that hasn't brought them up to be obsessed with being attractive to a male? Why do they get up and spend half an hour on their hair every morning? If this episode is so set on showing that men are being forced to be sexualized and beautiful in this society, why are the women still also being held to that standard, despite their supposed role as the powerful and dominant sex that doesn't have to kowtow to such concerns?

Star Trek isn't trying to say that women are always valuable for their appearance, no matter where they come from, or that femininity is inherently weak while masculinity is inherently strong. It's just not thinking about it.

But beyond all that, the most frustrating aspect of the episode is the treatment of William Riker, Commander of the Enterprise and point guy for the encounter. As a man visiting this culture in which his sex is objectified, he is forced to adopt its visual customs, obey its powerful female rulers and suffer the same discrimination faced by the locals. The episode makes this clearest by forcing him to dress up like a local male, much to the amusement of his female crewmembers.


Riker, looking fabulous in sparkly pirate shirt and elaborate ear jewelry.


Riker is our representative for the suffering of those targeted by sexism - he is the everyman who has been dropped into a culture that doesn't respect or treat him fairly due to simple and barbaric sexism, and through him the audience is meant to see that such treatment is unfair and unwarranted. You can't treat Riker that way, the writers are telling us - so how can you justify treating women that way?

But the problem is that nobody treats Riker that way. Not really.

When the queen sends over his sparkly slave-boy outfit, he wears it cheerfully - not because he has to, of course, but because he wants to play nice with the natives. It's something he's done on a hundred different planets - and in fact he makes a point of telling us that, narrating times he's worn fur or feathers to appease other planetary leaders - and he's not in the slightest worried about it. It carries no symbolic value for him; it doesn't oppress him, doesn't force him to be part of the culture's sexist rhetoric against his gender, doesn't put him into a place where he sees himself being objectified and demeaned through no fault of his own. It's just a voluntary action he takes to be nice to everyone, and clearly not a requirement (especially since Data, the other male on the mission, doesn't bother doing the same and nobody says boo about it). Riker's not actually from Angel One, so putting on the genie outfit is just part of the job, a little costumed fun before he heads back home. It can't touch him.

Similarly, Riker consistently does basically everything wrong in this society, a fact that is occasionally highlighted by other native males being shocked by his behavior but that he is never called on, punished for, or even made aware of. He doesn't mimic the submissive behavior of the other males around the important female leaders of Angel One; he doesn't pay attention to restrictions on where he's allowed to be or how much he's allowed to say in official political discussions; he doesn't shave his chest, which as you can see above is of ape-like hairiness. These are all privileges, we are given to understand, that are denied (or at least socially unacceptable) for the native males, but because Riker isn't from Angel One, nobody tries to stop him, or even tell him he's being inappropriate, not even so much as to give him the stinkeye. He's playing the game of being one of the men of Angel One, but he isn't one. It can't touch him.

And the most disturbing part of Riker's use as a representative here comes when Beata, the queen of the planet, decides to basically call him up and demand he come over for sex. It's a good moment in some ways; as a dominant female who wields all the power and influence of her world, Beata is behaving just like a powerful male government figure or businessman on our world might, issuing orders disguised as invitations, having no concern or even consideration that her attentions might be unwanted. She "invites him over" to her room for "drinks and talking", and once he's there puts the moves on him in no uncertain terms, secure in her own power and attractiveness and aware, at least on some level, that he's not really diplomatically or socially free to say no to her without serious repercussions. It's a situation that has uncomfortably real parallels to the way women are often treated in the real world, where male power, prestige and money are often considered sufficient to buy sexual affection, and where the leverage of such social influence all too often happens in a very calculated manner. Beata's misbehavior is spot on for the kind of illumination that this episode is aiming for.

But the problem is once again Riker - because, as usual, nothing touches him. Riker isn't from Angel One; he happens to think Beata is hot, has been wanting to bang her basically since he got here anyway, and makes it clear through rakish smiles, rogueish eyebrow-cocking and innuendo to his crew that he may be "obligated" to go "entertain" Beata, but that just sounds like a good old date to him. All the implied power imbalance and loss of control of the situation is rendered pointless and powerless, because it has no effect on Riker, who wanted to go do that anyway. He isn't a man being forced into an uncomfortable sexual situation thanks to his lack of social power; he's a man who is just as powerful and in control of himself and his situation as ever, and who is perfectly happy to go have some nice consensual sex as part of the evening's recreation. He even brings Beata a present for the festivities, because why not make sure we keep that age-old shorthand of thanking a woman for her sexual favors with gifts?

Riker's not from Angel One. He's just a visitor. Their sexism is an annoyance that doesn't bother him, can't oppress him and has no control over his life. He can get occasionally irritated about it when he feels like they're oppressing their people too much, but that oppression can never reach him. He's just a visitor here, and tomorrow he'll be back where none of this silliness has any kind of effect on anyone.

But I'm not a visitor in my world. I, and every other woman, have to live here every day. We have to live with the knowledge that speaking up in socially unacceptable situations will result in backlash and censure, that dressing up to look nice for men isn't just optional but a fact of life that we have to either conform to or suffer the immediate rake of scorn and disapproval, that complaining about the system's unfairness will result in verbal or even physical attacks against us, and that sexual attention can and will be pointed in our direction when we don't want it and used as a weapon against us. If, like Riker, I decided not to shave, my husband would immediately treat me as less attractive and my society at large would decide that I was lazy, disgusting, or just doing it for attention. If, like Riker, I was called upon with obvious sexual intent by a powerful man in my life, I would be called a whore.

I don't get to go home to the sexism-free United Federation of Planets tomorrow. I'm not a visitor. I live on Angel One, and I can never leave. Riker can't represent me or anyone like me.

And Star Trek isn't trying to say that womens' lot isn't that bad, that they probably actually enjoy it or that it's something they have no need to complain about and that isn't really a problem at its root level. It's just not thinking about it.

I don't really expect a lot more out of TNG, so don't mistake me for complaining about the episode's failures. It was made in 1987, nearly two and a half decades ago (hello everyone on my friends list did I just make you feel super old?), and we've come some way since then. The episode truly has noble intentions, no matter what its accidental subtext: its message is that sexism is wrong, and further that marginalization of any class of people is wrong, no matter why you're doing it or what evolutionary imperative you think is behind it, and that eventually a mature society evolves out of it. The writer is doing the best he can with the tools he has to try to get that message across.

The frustration, depression, and failures of the episode are not because of the writer, nor the fault of the actors or crew. They are all adults who were born in the fifties and sixties, who have grown up in a culture of sexism that is as inescapably ingrained in them as their own identities. The actresses who play the women of Angel One are not bad actresses who don't know how to portray powerful women, and they're not subversive anti-feminists who are trying to make the characters look bad; they're just using the natural body language and social conventions of the time in which they live, which is all anyone could expect from them. The writer who has failed so miserably to put Riker into the role of a woman is not intentionally trying to make light of the struggles of women in a sexist society, nor is he a bad writer who doesn't understand how to make a valid point; but he, too, has grown up in a society that does not give him a clear window into what life is like for women, even the women he is closest to, and as a result his attempts to portray it are inherently and inescapably flawed. Angel One is a very damaged portrait of the dangers, struggles and pains of a sexist society, but it is that precisely because it was created by such a society. The failures of the episode illustrate its point more clearly than its plot and platitudes ever could.

And that's why I love Star Trek, really, in all of its incarnations, from sixties special effects to the recent time-universe-bending feature film shenanigans: it always tries. Sometimes it fails to say something interesting, sometimes it accidentally contradicts itself, sometimes it hits the message too hard and just ends up irritating its audience, but it always tries. It always wants to say something to its viewers; it uses the wide, wild vista of science fiction to show all the foibles and idiosyncracies of mankind on a stage where their parts are played by aliens in rubber masks and bodysuits, and in doing so tells people about themselves in no uncertain terms. Its core premise - that of a future civilization of humanity in which everyone is equal, law and order keep lives happy and sane, and no one wants for basic needs or is left unhelped by their fellow man - is the kind of science fiction utopia that everyone can dream about, no matter what their religious, political or social beliefs. It's a show that constantly says, see: racism, sexism, religious discrimination, fascism, violence, these things are wrong. When we hurt one another, we are as ugly as the alien monsters on your screen. Someday, maybe we can stop hurting each other.

So I'm not angry about "Angel One", which tried so desperately to rise above sexism and instead found itself too hopelessly mired in its muck to escape. I love it, for existing, for saying something, for trying. I love that the Star Trek franchise still continues on, and still tries to make these kinds of statements, to hold up its futuristic mirror for viewers to show us the flaws in ourselves. I love that every successive version of it, even if it leaves behind my most beloved characters, even if it is written by less talented writers or helmed by a different vision, shows the signs of progress and change. Star Trek has existed for almost half a century, and its change over time parallels our change as a society. The growth and evolution of human society is the franchise's most core theme, and it embodies it even as it talks about it.

I live on Angel One. I can never leave. It's hard to explain Angel One to anyone who doesn't live here. But the existence of attempts like this to look through a window and see what it's like, to hold it up for the examination of people who may never have seen it before, to say, "This is not all right, and we should all know that," always reminds me that there's hope for residents of the place after all. Every time we try, we succeed a little more. Every time we talk about it, we understand one another a little more.

Someday, we'll build a spaceship and leave Angel One.
About this Entry
Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 03:14 pm The Phantom Project: Through Phantom Eyes: A Child's Guidance by Theodora Bruns
Current Mood: discontentdiscontent
Current Music: DeBarge - Rhythm of the Night
The first few steps of a journey are often the most difficult. I hope that's what's happening here.


Through Phantom Eyes: A Child's Guidance by Theodora Bruns, 2007
Grade: C-


I'm not kidding when I say this book represents the beginning of a journey. It's the first of a projected eight-volume series, of which the first five are already out. Bruns' ambitious mission is to use eight full novels (and she's not kidding, these are 300+ pages each) to explore the entirety of Erik's life from birth to death ("and beyond", she says, provoking shivery Meadows flashbacks), thus being more detailed and interesting than any treatment of his life before.

And, because I'm me, I'm embarking on this journey with her until the end, and I refuse to get off my camel before it's finished.

In which Erik is some kind of alien childspawn.Collapse )

I think there's actually a lot of decent stuff in here, but it's swimming around in a mess of cliche and Bruns obviously hasn't quite found her feet as a writer yet. It's well-intentioned but not yet good. I'm interested to see what the future installments will look like and whether they'll be more of the same or show some progress - on either Erik's part as a character or Bruns' as a writer - to make them more exciting.

(Cross-posted from The Phantom Project.)
About this Entry