Orange is the New Black cast for Entertainment Weekly (May 2, 2014)
If we could exchange freaking Tiffany for Miss Claudette it would be PERFECT!
Well, you gotta laugh… Sif, Sif talking about betrayal?!! And who, dear Sif, betrayed the duly appointed acting-King of Asgard again? Hmm..? Oh, yes, you did!
The level of hypocrisy in “heroes” never ceases to amaze me,
seashellknight replied to your quote:Though the time and place is wildly inappropriate…I suspect some will argue GRRM himself is clueless about consent and rape issues, but I never saw the book scene as rape, mostly because Cersei doesn’t react as an angry rape victim would. Quite different from her reaction to Robert raping her.
Yeah, I know that a lot of people automatically view some of his writing as problematic because he’s a guy writing about misogyny-related issues. I’d be lying if I said there wasn’t some sexism in ASOIAF at times, but for the most part I think he does a very good job with his female characters. He never portrays sexual assault as anything less than an act of utmost evil, and the women who have been raped all react as you would expect their characters to react - in Cersei’s case, she bottles up this massive fury that culminates in her arranging Robert’s murder (i.e. not just getting over it like it was nothing).Unfortunately, the show’s MRA-like take on rape as No Big Deal that women Just Get Over isn’t new. Sansa’s almost-raped twice but doesn’t seem to care. Daisy disappears after Joff’s sexualized assault by proxy. Sigh.
I completely agree. There certainly is a lot of rape in the books, but it’s rarely brushed aside like it’s nothing. Even minor characters who are raped have very significant reactions to it, like the young woman Arya encounters at Harrenhal who is raped repeatedly by the Mountain’s men and ends up trying to kill one of them for it (only to be killed herself, of course, because this is Westeros, the land of unhappiness).
GOT, on the other hand, just seems to throw rape in for shock value. Sansa at the riot, Daisy and Ros, etc. It completely devalues it and acts as confirmation for the people who think that rape isn’t a life-altering event.
Stunning photos of Poveglia - the most haunted place in the world - which is now up for sale by the Italian government. Photos include the mass graves of plague victims, the skull of a “vampire” with a rock shoved in it’s mouth to keep it from biting people, and the collapsing ruins of the insane asylum.
"A quarantine station, a dumping ground for plague victims, more recently a mental hospital — the tiny island of Poveglia in the Venice Lagoon has served many unpleasant purposes over the years, but today it stands empty, a crumbling collection of abandoned buildings and weeds run riot just two miles from the glittering palaces of the Grand Canal. Legends and rumors about Poveglia are nearly as pervasive as the weeds, and they read like a horror story: that so many people were burned and buried there during the black plague that the soil is 50% human ash; that local fishermen give the island a wide berth for fear of netting the wave-polished bones of ancestors; that the psychiatrist who ran the mental hospital was a butcher and torturer who went mad from guilt and threw himself from the island’s belltower, only to survive the fall and be strangled by a "ghostly mist" that emerged from the ground."
I actually wrote a fanfic about this island.
Once again tumblr forces me to cut excellent commentary, which can be found here.
First let me just say that if English is your third language I’m now kind of embarrassed by my own English… Moving on, I can definitely see all the things you’re pointing out as distinct possibilities. There are a lot of blanks left in Odin’s character / motivations since he gets so little screen time, so there are various valid interpretations that could make him look pretty awful.
So my quarrel isn’t with people who decide to interpret Odin as malevolent or abusive. My quarrel is with those who get really intensely and vocally angry about this choice of interpretation, and treat it as fact. If Odin-as-abusive-father makes you that angry, perhaps you could choose a different interpretation? I certainly chose a different interpretation, and not for any biased reason; that’s just how it came across to me in my multiple viewings of the movies (without other context).
But I guess that’s kind of my approach to life in general. I also give Loki the most merciful possible interpretation. I’m just a benefit-of-doubt kind of gal, because I can’t handle the stress of nursing a constant futile smoldering rage when there’s any other option on the table. :)
I’m not certain if your pseudo-question/suggestion was rhetorical, but I’m prepared to answer it anyway.
I’m not in the fandom to feel good about the characters; I’m in the fandom to feel whatever is appropriate when immersed in the text, and whatever that is, I find it rewarding, or I wouldn’t hang about. For me, immersion demands a deeper reading than face value, and the best analysis I can manage. I do not choose my interpretation, I go with the one that makes the most sense to me after I’ve considered all I can and gone through the process of determining where I think things don’t make sense or don’t make enough sense, patching as many holes as possible via induction, resolving the places where it’s self-contradictory, and applying any relevant knowledge I already have (which, entertainingly enough, does not extend to either Norse myth or comics!Marvel, as the former is not one of my academic interests or studies and the latter is a corner of the Marvel comics I haven’t examined much; Thor was never one of my favorite heroes). The idea of Odin’s throne is one provided me by someone who is more familiar with the myths, but as I mentioned in my previous reply, it’s also not necessary for the cohesiveness of my stance. To wit, my external context was extremely minimal, unless you count a good working knowledge of psychology.
There are glaring inconsistencies all over the place in these movies, and my headcanons are the result of attempting to explain them. For an entertaining example of Marvel themselves presenting something as fact which is wholly the product of extrapolation of the characters’ unseen and unexplained motives, I refer you to this post. Where is the evidence for this, then? Even with the laxest possible interpretation of “evidence”, there isn’t any, and most of the available evidence contradicts it.
I feel that we’re asked to accept Odin as wise, knowledgeable, a great leader, a fair man, and a good father, and then shown an entire laundry list of circumstantial evidence that this is not the case, and very little that it is. Either he’s incompetent and foolish and blind, or he’s wise and cunning and patient, and given some of the direct evidence we’re given — Frigga’s line about there always being a reason, Odin himself tutoring Thor in wisdom — I don’t find the former interpretation acceptable, even as a mix with the latter. This is probably due to both bad writing, and the influence of conventional Western morals as attributed to a non-human, non-modern society, as well as the tendency of comics as a source material to lead to the simplification of complex issues and the assumption that things will be taken at face value, but that does not make analysis beyond that invalid.
To be honest, both interpretations upset me, because Odin is a character for whom we’re supposed to be rooting. He’s the source of morality for Asgard in general and someone that our hero, Thor, looks up to. Our hero looks up to and takes guidance from someone who is either hopelessly inept or abusive. The characterization of the other characters in his immediate sphere — Frigga, Thor, Loki, even the W4 — is a major source for my interpretation of the latter, as all the characters are linked to each other meaningfully and didn’t just spring up wholly formed without affecting each other.
But I’m all right with being upset, and with being angry, because they are valid emotions engendered by a valid reading of the source material, and that’s what I’m in it for. If I derive my enjoyment of fandom from analysis and extrapolation, I can’t just toss out the results, even if the emotion they cause in me isn’t bliss. The point is that they cause emotion in me in the first place.
I feel like the core element of what makes us despise Thor’s behavior more than we despise Loki’s is hypocrisy — not ours, all of Asgard’s. Everyone in Asgard acts like a hypocritical shit, except for Loki, who just acts like a regular shit plus mental instability derived from having been his family’s butt monkey. There’s a lot Loki does that’s cruel and unethical, but he makes no bones about it: the god of lies is more honest than everyone else about what’s going on. He refuses to shut up about the injustice done him and is continually punished and silenced, which has really squicky resonance with real-world treatment of oppressed people, and he’s actually literally a member of an in-universe conquered race that’s considered inferior.
There’s a lot to be said for acknowledging Loki’s cruelty and wrongdoing, but the fact that the ostensible villain is the only one who displays no cognitive dissonance whatsoever means that the writers have done things EPICALLY wrong. That’s why we sympathize with him so much. That’s why it’s much harder to sympathize with Thor, even taking into account that he’s manipulated by Odin and knows less than half of what the audience knows about anything.
This is what happens when you try to take conventional Western morality and easily identifiable hero/villain dichotomies relying on said Western morality and paste them onto a cultural background like the one displayed in Asgard: you get a villain whose actions are no worse (and in some cases are more objectively heroic) than the hero’s and who is vilified for not conforming and not measuring up to his family’s standards much more than for anything he actually does, and you get a society with massive contradictions in its values which NECESSITATE hypocrisy on the part of the “good guys” in order to make any sense to the audience. You get a failed narrative full of Broken Aesops.
And that? Is disappointing, lazy, relies-too-much-on-ignorance-in-the-audience writing. That’s INSULTING writing. And it was probably inevitable. These movies weren’t aimed at a discerning audience with the ability or propensity to parse heavily gray morality and cultural implication; they were aimed, as always, at the lowest common denominator among a specific subset of existing fans. The preceding is not in any fashion an excuse, however, because if the writers didn’t want to delve into morally gray, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE HALFWAY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. They ended up with the worst of both worlds: enough gray and informed morality in the narrative to make it stand out as not quite right, but ignoring that gray area so thoroughly that all it does is cause really unfortunate, squicky implications.
Protip, Marvel: if what you want is black-and-white, simple, identifiable morality of Hero vs. Villain, FUCKING DON’T CREATE A SYMPATHETIC UNDERDOG AND THEN KICK HIM REPEATEDLY. JUST BE DISNEY AND MAKE YOUR VILLAIN EVIL. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH AT WRITING MORALLY GRAY TO BE ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT IT.
"She is as hungry for him as he is for her."
So I’m not saying that all the people going on about how Jaime was an unreliable narrator and how Cersei’s “weak” rejection wasn’t actually “weak” and how she only gave consent to get it over with faster…
… because the author is saying it for me.
(Though he should have stopped when she first said “no.” That wasn’t cool. But yeah, Cersei’s consent was real is my main takeaway from this.)
"as we all know jaime is a good person and he’s not some kind of monster. i mean he doesn’t do bad things!"
haha yeah. still haven’t watched the episode but I think I know what the silence is about now and YES… everytime people start talking about loving Jaime that’s pretty much what I say
"…but he pushed a kid from a fucking tower…"
Right ,neither Cercie or Jamie are good people. Good people in the world of GOT tend to die. That being said,Jamie doesn’t have the nature of a rapist,hand or no hand,he’s not into proving his power and dominance via rape particularly not with his twin sister who he views as the other half of himself. he might as well rape himself as rape Cercie. This was some kind failed attempt by the writers to show something. I think they were trying to show the same something with the scene where Sandor goes back on his code of non thievery after giving his word and gaining trust from his hosts. Another failed attempt at something. I’m not sure what. Something to do with amoral behavior being the only way to survive in this new upside down world where wedding guests are slaughtered,beloved sisters are raped and dragons are once again taking to the air. I say something like that because I had to guess since Jaimie raping Cercie was so forced and OOC it was a useless and meaningless way to advance this point if indeed this was the point being advanced. What a shame that rape is such a common and accepted way for screenwriters to visually show a male’s complex emotional state ( one where he is confused about his place in the world and to prove to himself he has some power ,he reaches out and rapes his beloved) and then moves on feeling “all better now “and being forgiven by his victim( hello Sookie and Bill).:(((
Murder and rape have nothing in common. Not every murderer is necessarily a rapist… not even an attempted child murderer. So no, I’m sorry, but this “but he pushed Bran out of the window! there is no wonder he is a rapist too!” makes no sense. Jaime pushed Bran out of the window because he perceived him as a threat not just to his relationship with Cersei but to his life, Cersei’s life, and Joffrey’s, Tommen’s, and Myrcella’s. It’s still a horrible, inexcusable, and completely wrong action but still there is some twisted logic behind it, it isn’t violence for violence’s sake. RAPE IS VIOLENCE FOR VIOLENCE’S SAKE. There is no logic behind rape, no possible rationalization. This is why rape is worse than murder. This is also why I believe that every person can virtually commit murder, but not every person can virtually commit rape. This is why rape is such a big NO NO for anti-heroes or characters who have to be perceived as morally ambiguous but still fascinating: jesus christ, LOOK AT HANNIBAL LECTER. He’s the perfect example of why rape doesn’t tell a good story, doesn’t make a fascinating anti hero character, doesn’t make a good villain either, doesn’t make anything because rape is not even about morality or amorality. Rape is simply revolting. How come Bryan Fuller can grasp this simple notion, but D&D can’t??
ALSO, Jaime committing rape at this point of the story, after all he endured, after going through a significant character evolution in season 3, after being established as a person who is willing to risk his own life to stop some rapists from doing rapey things, Jaime, who is supposed to be a sympathetic character, Jaime, who is in the middle of an identity arc which is supposed to make the audience root for him, well narrative wise, it’s fucking suicidal and completely invalidates his arc so far.
Well I’m a rape survivor too, and an abuse survivor multiple times over. Your voice does not overshadow mine, nor any of the other rape/abuse survivors that have spoken up about this.
So shove it.