Gatefail 2009 (or, A Primer on Stories that Scream)

[Coronach]

Oh Blitzelsteinn, you and your drugs that I score for you because of how horrible I am as a person.

Indubitably, kind sir

[Pandora's_Box]

It's worth doing. Up until now it's pretty much been Cate posting and loads of her followers agreeing with her. I signed up. I was mentioned personally in that article, so I thought it was the right thing to do.

You've convinced me.

Here's what I said...

I'm trying to take you seriously because you raise some valid arguments - nothing new or 'edgy', but valid nonetheless and important to note - but the fact that your entire argument revolves around the assumptions you've made with regard to how the episode will play out makes it rather difficult.

The pages revealed what was acceptable at that stage - a sex-driven Perry, a story of miraculous healing, the 'straightening' of a gay character, and a situation of (at best) dubious consent. What was telling was that if, indeed, the public was never meant to see these things, the Stargate producers and their associates felt safe writing and editing sexist, homophobic, racist, and ableist narratives that relied on old tropes about the magical "fixing" of disability and the dispensability of women's bodies (particularly the bodies of non-white women) among themselves.

I find the motives rather questionable on your part and the part of these "critics" to, first of all, so blatantly and unapologetically decide exactly what's going to happen in this episode and, second of all, based upon that to judge the material and the writers so harshly. I guarantee you that you will not find a movie critic, television critic, or book critic worth his/her salt that critiques material or the people who write it so thoroughly and decidedly until they read it/see it for themselves and can judge it in its entirety.

The combined evidence of the casting call and audition sides suggested that the writers of Stargate: Universe intended to air a storyline which maligned people with disabilities, overwrote a character's canonical lesbianism with heterosexual sex, reiterated the old trope of Asian and Asian-descended women being sexual playthings for white men, and – without a scene in which Perry asked Wray for consent to use her body for sexual purposes – condoned rape.

Let's cast aside the obvious fact (and very important fact, but whatever) that you haven't seen the episode or read it's script and assume you're right in saying that Perry never asked Wray for consent. Let's also assume that Perry goes ahead and uses Wray's body for sexual gratification. Where is it writ that this necessarily means the writers condone rape? By your logic, every writer condones every immoral act he/she writes about. I sincerely doubt this is the case and I hope that this is not what you truly mean. If this were the case then I'd venture that most science fiction writers are rather nasty people what with all the genocide, violence, murder, and mayhem that's been known to happen in the genre. And it doesn't stop there. Every genre of fiction contains, to put it lightly, unpleasantness. That's just the way of it.

This is why I'm beginning to think that you and your "critics" seem to be missing the point of fiction altogether. Writing does not equate to condoning. An author or writer who writes about rape is not a closet rapist any more than one who writes about sexism is sexist. Science fiction (and I'd venture all fiction) is "the literature of ideas" or as Isaac Assimov once put it, "that branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings." What does that mean? Anything. Everything. And it's not something we should be afraid to explore. Some may do it well, others may do it not so well, and still other might do it quite badly altogether, but demanding the cessation of the whole lot of it because it is unpleasant, hurtful, and disturbing is to miss the point. It's supposed to be unpleasant, hurtful, and disturbing. Why? Because we, us, me, you, humanity in general, is unpleasant, hurtful, and disturbing and the only way to see it, be made aware of it, and hopefully change it is to be forced to see it and think about it. "Out of sight, out of mind", right?

Making a white, male character sexually vulnerable to another man would be new (and avoiding homophobic hysteria while doing so would be vital and refreshing)

Why is this more acceptable to you? Why is this okay, but the rape of an Asian woman not? Because it is a rarity or because it's revenge? And how should the Asian woman be treated in fiction? Should she never encounter an hardship (as an Asian woman in real life might) because to do so would be to fall victim to racist trope? And should homosexual characters be saintly too?

Why is it okay for you to call this "vital and refreshing", but I'm demonized for considering this proposed storyline for SGU "interesting"?

Eurydice said:
This dismissiveness - that's what's offensive. There's no need to tell a woman that bad things, like rape, need to be dealt with - she deals with it every day, both in real life and on TV. In fact, what she's thinking is why can't somebody else get raped for a change. That might be some powerful drama.

You mean a man? Because in terms of male and female, that's the only option left to us. And there have been instances of this - BSG comes to mind.

Or do you mean in terms of race? So if it's not okay to rape an Asian woman (we'll stick to fictional settings) who is it more okay to rape? Raping which gender of which race would be more entertaining and "powerfully dramatic" for you?

Don't you (the collective you) see that while demonising TPTB of Stargate for "condoning" rape, "dramaticising" it, using it for "entertainment" and to cater to the "nerdy, white" boy demographic you're being hypocritical? It's not okay to rape a woman, but it's okay for a man to be "sexually vulnerable" to another man. It's not okay to use the sexualisation and rape of women for entertainment purposes, but it's more "powerful drama" if it's someone else. It's not okay to fictionalise and portray rape, sexist situations, racist characters, or demean characters with physical disabilities because it is hurtful and "escapism traps others", but it's seemingly okay to commit random acts of violence.....and rape, sexualise, or demean other characters (white characters?).

What you consider entertainment, I call hypocrisy. I have to say it and I don't apologise for it.

I do not enjoy stories of rape. I do not enjoy murder and mayhem. I do not get off on "power and privilege" when a person of "colour" is marginalised or demeaned or otherwise hurt in some way. But I also won't stand here and demand it be done to others instead because that would be more "powerful drama" or more "vital and refreshing".

I enjoy literature and the telling of stories. Some stories are better than others and the good ones have a point, a moral, a message. Nothing quite so obvious as Aesop's fables, but it's there. And on the path to achieving this message, bad things happen because nothing is learnt without strife, nothing is conquered without suffering. The point is to write it so that someone sees it, learns from it, talks about it, brings awareness to it, does something about it. If all the writers in the world did as you seem to be asking then or had done hundreds of years ago, then I rather wonder where we'd be as a society right now? Where would we be if Harper Lee had never written "To Kill a Mockingbird" or Mark Twain had never written "Huckleberry Finn"? Where would children of a decade ago be today if J.K Rowling had never gotten Harry Potter published because she "condoned" witchcraft and Satan?

I don't presume to compare the writers of SGU to them, but the point still stands. Then again, it could be that good. It's not like we've seen the episode. It's not like we've seen any episodes.

[jelgate]

I hang around PG15 more then anyone. I must be a disgrace to humanity and void of decent morals. Time to check into the asylum.

[PG15]

You must!

You've convinced me.

Here's what I said...

...

I love you.

[jelgate]

You must!



...

I love you.

You just saying that so she won't kill you because of the BJS comment

And I love her more

[Pandora's_Box]

...

I love you.

This was never a secret, but I'm flattered anyway.

You just saying that so she won't kill you because of the BJS comment.

And I love her more

Boys, boys, boys. This is not a contest...

Unless I make it one.

[Coronach]

This was never a secret, but I'm flattered anyway.

Boys, boys, boys. This is not a contest...

Unless I make it one.

I'd say I love you too, but I'm not sure if we've known each other long enough

PG and Jel on the other hand...

[jelgate]

Knowing you Pan such an idea would bring much joy. Kind of like the the blog author had much joy in that post.

[jelgate]

I'd say I love you too, but I'm not sure if we've known each other long enough

PG and Jel on the other hand...

Count yourself lucky. The things I have seen are not for the weak stomached

[Pandora's_Box]

I'd say I love you too, but I'm not sure if we've known each other long enough

Nonsense.

I'm very open-minded.

PG and Jel on the other hand...

Are hopeless to resist?

Knowing you Pan such an idea would bring much joy. Kind of like the the blog author had much joy in that post.

Well, it goes without saying that I'm a narcissist.

This is why you must duel and there must be mud involved. And some blood. What is love if there is not blood spilled as sacrifice?

[Pandora's_Box]

Count yourself lucky. The things I have seen are not for the weak stomached

You were never supposed to open that drawer.

Sadly, you have never been the same again.

[jelgate]

This is why you must duel and there must be mud involved. And some blood. What is love if there is not blood spilled as sacrifice?

I believe I have done this already. Isn't that how a certain Canon came to life?

[Pandora's_Box]

I believe I have done this already. Isn't that how a certain Canon came to life?

:: searches for cowpants ::

Just wanted to make sure. You know how he is at the merest mention of that thing.

And you need to do it again.

One time is an accident. Twice is a mistake. More than that is commitment.

......

Or was that something else....

[jelgate]

cow never leaves off topic.

I've definatly used it more then 3 times

[PG15]

I'm thoroughly confused right now.