Book review: Whedonistas!
Oct. 16th, 2011 08:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
next_to_normalIt occurs to me that I never posted my thoughts on Whedonistas, which I figure might be relevant to some of your interests?
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here's the scoop: my BFFgabrielleabelle got published in a book about Whedony things, along with a few other fandom peeps - whom you'll be able to identify because they cite their posting handles or their work, unlike Gabs, who retains her sekrit identity - and some actual professional people, who are far less interesting to me because we don't hang out on LJ together.
Whedonistas: A Celebration of the Worlds of Joss Whedon by the Women Who Love Them
(And the award for "longest title" goes to...)
Like most anthologies, this one had a few essays I really liked, one or two I strongly disagreed with, with the rest falling somewhere in between. In general, I felt like it was a little too heavy on the "personal stories" end and lacking in really insightful analysis. This is a book for fandom by fandom - therefore, if you want me to pay money for it, then you'd better give me better meta than what I can find for free on LJ. Granted, that's a pretty high bar but... well, I would probably rather buy Gabs' LJ in book form. :) It's also notably lacking in criticism, which I suppose is to be expected of a "celebration" of Joss' work, but I'll be honest, I utterly loathe that "Joss is God" meme and I think the dude gets enough unqualified praise, so I'd like to see an analytical eye turned toward what he gets wrong just as much as what he gets right. (In other words, Gabs, I liked the essay that got published and it definitely fits the tone of the book more, but I think it would've been a better collection if more essays like the draft that I read had been included.)
I'm not going to go through every single essay, because then we'd be here all day, so here are some of the highlights:
Brand New Day: The Evolution of the Dr. Horrible Fandom - In the middle of a general overview of the grassroots nature of the project and the community surrounding it, Priscilla Spencer gives a thoughtful and rarely-seen analysis of Penny and addresses the dissatisfaction many fans had with her lack of development and her ultimate fate. It reminded me of an essay I read (but of course can no longer find) that talked about how all the things about Penny that made people angry were intentional, that we're deeply in Billy's POV, so of course Penny is a cipher - he doesn't know her at all, he's barely had a few conversations with her, and most of his "love" for her is based on an idealized fantasy of her. For Billy, she's symbolic more than anything else, just a trophy to be won, and in that sense it's explicit commentary on the objectification of women. Because Dr. Horrible is such a lovable villain, I think it's easy to forget that we're in the villain's POV, and therefore anything ostensibly endorsed by the narrative should be taken with a grain of salt.
And at this point, I've written an essay almost as long as the section I was referencing, so. Moving on.
The Ages of Dollhouse: Autobiography Through Whedon - In a really interesting approach, Sigrid Ellis takes us through the characters of Dollhouse by equating it to the different fantasies of power that she had at different ages. Topher Brink the bitter 13-year-old, for whom every interaction gets turned into a middle school playground fantasy of beating the bully? YES PLEASE. Paul Ballard the 15-year-old who thinks he knows everything and can save everyone, but really it's just a desperate need to overcome insecurity by becoming someone else's savior? OH YES. And I'm sure it will surprise no one that we should want to be Adelle DeWitt when we grow up. :)
Imperfectly Perfect: Why I Really Love Buffy for Being a Pill Sometimes - Given all the criticism and outright hatred Buffy gets from a lot of fans when she screws up or acts self-centered, I was really glad to see this essay by Mariah Huehner, whom you might recognize as editor of the Angel comics (though I do think she's somewhat misguided in choosing "A Hole in the World" as her favorite episode of either series). There seems to be this conceit that Strong Female CharactersTM can't have flaws, otherwise they're not feminist. Because real-life feminists never, ever make mistakes, right?? Being strong also does not preclude emotional vulnerability or femininity - just because Buffy cries when her boyfriend dumps her, just because she loves clothes and makeup and wears high heels to the apocalypse, that doesn't mean she's not a feminist character.
And finally, trivial as it may seem, I just have to get this out: I violently disagreed with the premise of Romancing the Vampire and Other Shiny Bits, that Buffy and Angel represent "a kind of queerish ideal." Really? REALLY??? Buffy and... ANGEL? Buffy and Spike, sure, but Angel? Not so much.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here's the scoop: my BFF
gabrielleabelle got published in a book about Whedony things, along with a few other fandom peeps - whom you'll be able to identify because they cite their posting handles or their work, unlike Gabs, who retains her sekrit identity - and some actual professional people, who are far less interesting to me because we don't hang out on LJ together.Whedonistas: A Celebration of the Worlds of Joss Whedon by the Women Who Love Them
(And the award for "longest title" goes to...)
Like most anthologies, this one had a few essays I really liked, one or two I strongly disagreed with, with the rest falling somewhere in between. In general, I felt like it was a little too heavy on the "personal stories" end and lacking in really insightful analysis. This is a book for fandom by fandom - therefore, if you want me to pay money for it, then you'd better give me better meta than what I can find for free on LJ. Granted, that's a pretty high bar but... well, I would probably rather buy Gabs' LJ in book form. :) It's also notably lacking in criticism, which I suppose is to be expected of a "celebration" of Joss' work, but I'll be honest, I utterly loathe that "Joss is God" meme and I think the dude gets enough unqualified praise, so I'd like to see an analytical eye turned toward what he gets wrong just as much as what he gets right. (In other words, Gabs, I liked the essay that got published and it definitely fits the tone of the book more, but I think it would've been a better collection if more essays like the draft that I read had been included.)
I'm not going to go through every single essay, because then we'd be here all day, so here are some of the highlights:
Brand New Day: The Evolution of the Dr. Horrible Fandom - In the middle of a general overview of the grassroots nature of the project and the community surrounding it, Priscilla Spencer gives a thoughtful and rarely-seen analysis of Penny and addresses the dissatisfaction many fans had with her lack of development and her ultimate fate. It reminded me of an essay I read (but of course can no longer find) that talked about how all the things about Penny that made people angry were intentional, that we're deeply in Billy's POV, so of course Penny is a cipher - he doesn't know her at all, he's barely had a few conversations with her, and most of his "love" for her is based on an idealized fantasy of her. For Billy, she's symbolic more than anything else, just a trophy to be won, and in that sense it's explicit commentary on the objectification of women. Because Dr. Horrible is such a lovable villain, I think it's easy to forget that we're in the villain's POV, and therefore anything ostensibly endorsed by the narrative should be taken with a grain of salt.
And at this point, I've written an essay almost as long as the section I was referencing, so. Moving on.
The Ages of Dollhouse: Autobiography Through Whedon - In a really interesting approach, Sigrid Ellis takes us through the characters of Dollhouse by equating it to the different fantasies of power that she had at different ages. Topher Brink the bitter 13-year-old, for whom every interaction gets turned into a middle school playground fantasy of beating the bully? YES PLEASE. Paul Ballard the 15-year-old who thinks he knows everything and can save everyone, but really it's just a desperate need to overcome insecurity by becoming someone else's savior? OH YES. And I'm sure it will surprise no one that we should want to be Adelle DeWitt when we grow up. :)
Imperfectly Perfect: Why I Really Love Buffy for Being a Pill Sometimes - Given all the criticism and outright hatred Buffy gets from a lot of fans when she screws up or acts self-centered, I was really glad to see this essay by Mariah Huehner, whom you might recognize as editor of the Angel comics (though I do think she's somewhat misguided in choosing "A Hole in the World" as her favorite episode of either series). There seems to be this conceit that Strong Female CharactersTM can't have flaws, otherwise they're not feminist. Because real-life feminists never, ever make mistakes, right?? Being strong also does not preclude emotional vulnerability or femininity - just because Buffy cries when her boyfriend dumps her, just because she loves clothes and makeup and wears high heels to the apocalypse, that doesn't mean she's not a feminist character.
And finally, trivial as it may seem, I just have to get this out: I violently disagreed with the premise of Romancing the Vampire and Other Shiny Bits, that Buffy and Angel represent "a kind of queerish ideal." Really? REALLY??? Buffy and... ANGEL? Buffy and Spike, sure, but Angel? Not so much.
no subject
Date: Oct. 17th, 2011 05:27 am (UTC)BWAHA.
Granted, that's a pretty high bar but... well, I would probably rather buy Gabs' LJ in book form. :)
WORD.
of course Penny is a cipher - he doesn't know her at all… For Billy, she's symbolic more than anything else, just a trophy to be won, and in that sense it's explicit commentary on the objectification of women
Ugh, this. Great point. Hence why I LMAO at people taking it at face value.
In a really interesting approach, Sigrid Ellis takes us through the characters of Dollhouse by equating it to the different fantasies of power that she had at different ages.
OOOOH, V. INTERESTING. I totally agree.
I violently disagreed with the premise of Romancing the Vampire and Other Shiny Bits, that Buffy and Angel represent "a kind of queerish ideal."
… I'm sorry, but. How. Tell me how B/A defies gender norms in any way. ROTFL.
in conclusion: Thanks for the info. I might attempt to track down some of these essays when I can be bothered.
no subject
Date: Oct. 17th, 2011 08:46 pm (UTC)Because Buffy is strong and doesn't need Angel to defend her
which makes it even more patronizing when he does it anyway.Seriously. I don't have the book handy, but that was pretty much my take-away.
no subject
Date: Oct. 17th, 2011 11:52 am (UTC)Um...is it weird that I haven't read it? I get kinda nervous since I'm in there and I worry that mine sucks and I haven't even really read my essay since I sent it in, so...
that we're deeply in Billy's POV, so of course Penny is a cipher - he doesn't know her at all, he's barely had a few conversations with her, and most of his "love" for her is based on an idealized fantasy of her. For Billy, she's symbolic more than anything else, just a trophy to be won, and in that sense it's explicit commentary on the objectification of women.
*nods*
I've often thought it's a commentary on those annoying romances that are ubiquitous in fiction where a dude/chick "falls in love" with someone they see every week in passing or somesuch nonsense. The scene where Penny is trying to talk to Billy about her charity while he's distracted with his little evil plan and so DOESN'T CARE about what she's saying clenches it for me. So the fridging? I don't mind so much. I think it's subverted as fuck.
no subject
Date: Oct. 17th, 2011 08:53 pm (UTC)So the fridging? I don't mind so much. I think it's subverted as fuck.
Exactly. I think a lot of people took it in the same vein as Jenny, Tara, Anya, Cordelia, Fred, etc. etc. etc. and just immediately got outraged. Which is fair, because Joss has a horrible pattern there, so "there he goes again" is a perfectly valid response. But (as I've said many times), if he hadn't abused the "dead lover" trope so much, people wouldn't be so quick to judge.
no subject
Date: Oct. 25th, 2011 04:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Oct. 25th, 2011 05:07 pm (UTC)Anyway, yeah, as I was reading along, your essay was the first one that really made a lasting impression on me, so kudos to you! Thanks for stopping by.