**Author's Note**
This is a weird way to do this, but, A, I'm not going to bother Jacob with an email of this length, and, B, I did write it as if to him, and I'm not willing to do the work to redo the focus. I'm lazy. Deal with it, imaginary readers.
************************************************************************************
"The definition of a genius is somebody that agrees with you. The definition of an asshole is somebody that doesn't. The definition of good art is art that somehow follows your precise personal instructions. The definition of bad art is anything administrated by somebody else, even somebody who knows what they're doing. The less important the issue, the louder the volume. This is what it's like to feel utterly powerless in your real life." -- Jacob Clifton, Gossip Girl 4x22 Recap.
Wow, what a bitch slap. I can only imagine the sheer shrillness of commentary that you're responding to, but I often try to fill in the blanks. I liked what you said above because I agree with it. See what I did there?
INTERWEBS AND FANDOM
It occurred to me recently, in a more complete fashion than ever prior, how much every opinion we form and express as a truism to others is really about ourselves, our views and our needs. Not that I didn't get that before, but it's a thought that bears revisiting. I was reading a comment (on the Buffy Rewatch I believe) where someone posted about how she has problems with Buffy (the character), but it seems like everyone else loves her so much they overlook her faults, and therefore the poster feels the need to point them out. What struck me about the comment was that it is almost word-for-word the exact opposite of how I feel. Meaning not only do I like the character, but to me it seems that people are always criticizing her or hating on her, so I feel the need to speak out in her defense all the time.
It really clicked over in my mind how subjective what we see on screen or read online is. Not only in the perceived biases of what we're seeing at the moment, but in what we choose to take notice of in general. Whether we're the kind of people that usually only take note of the things that speak positively to us (and I'm not sure those people are ever on the internet) or we always notice as ubiquitous the things that strike us negatively, those impressions are what stay with us to form the default atmosphere of our lives. To shift metaphors, the pictures we see on our cave wall are playing out behind a hazy curtain of unexamined ideas, with holes worn through by our obsessively picking at the curtain in a few key places allowing us to see small parts of the larger picture. Our favorite things and/or our pet peeves emerge picture-perfect while the rest of the image remains hidden behind that slightly opaque barrier. All the things we don't notice.
Like I said, none of this is new to me, but I think I'm beginning to understand it more now. It's not just seeing what you want to see, it's not just turning away from things you don't want to hear, it's our attempts to construct the world around us in the exact way we want it to be that blinds us to the world as it is and makes us try to force the world to conform to the way we imagine it. We don't always consciously decide what sources of light we want to turn our faces toward, but the choices we make almost without thinking become equally important to us because we believe it defines who we are; that's no small thing. And part of who we are is what we stand in opposition to.
I get why we do these things; I see myself do it too. I fully understand the need to define myself against the pressures of a world that assumes me to be someone else. I believe in the right of people to define art for themselves. I can accept their unattenuated (while obviously personal and subjective) statements about the quality of a show's characters or the relevance of a written piece or the larger sociopolitical ramifications of a storyline. What I don't get is when people take what they read or see in artistic works and commentary on such works (that are created for a large audience) as personal attacks that must be defended against. What I don't get is the sense of absolute surety that they're right about what they say, followed almost immediately by a sense of martyrdom and a righteous desire to stand up for their truth in face of this horrifying (and usually largely imagined) oppression. I mean, I feel the feelings, but I tend not to blame others for them.
Maybe I'm jealous. I have a bit of a Hamlet problem, always have, in that I find it very hard to make a definitive choice. I see more than one side of things; I don't tend to think in stark binaries. I think it would be nice to have that sense of the rightness of my beliefs and my words, but it without fail feels like a lie. I may watch something and think, "Oh, that storyline is crap." And I may never want to watch the show again. But do I believe I'm objectively correct? No. I believe that's my opinion. I don't even believe it will always be my opinion because I've changed my mind on those kinds of things a thousand times. So why the shrill?
POLITICAL STUFF
I have to confess to being (perhaps pruriently) interested in the conversation you often seem to be continuing about feminism. Myself, I tend to be someone who appreciates the historical value of second wave feminism, but sees the flaws it had then and especially has now in being applicable in any concrete way to specific situations that arise in our current world. And it seems like I'm always in some way trying to negotiate a path through the muck to get to a place where I know how to react to the issues of the day in a way that doesn't reject the past, but integrates itself comfortably into the now and the future. Because it can be such a mess.
I think I have issues with some of the same topics you do. I'm thinking especially of atheism and feminism. How they manifest online in both obvious and subtle ways; how the labels destroy or betray what they're labeling more often than not. I wonder how much of the problem is with trying to move forward from identity politics to a new thing. In the past it has been important to be loudly and proudly one thing or another, just to get attention and results in the political arena. But the finer distinctions, the individuality of people, gets lost in the label. And people stop talking with real words and start using slogans. And then they forget what the slogans used to mean and why they were once so vitally important. It's all words, words. (What the hell does "the personal is political" mean now to me?)
But I can't abandon the old ways completely because they did and still do have some value. It is important to analyze art for its political and social assumptions and to point out when the message isn't always such a good thing. But when the people doing the pointing out don't have a sense of history or an understanding of how art works, yet still have equal voice in critiquing it -- it sounds elitist, doesn't it? To say those opinions are less important. Maybe they're less relevant? Or maybe it's not that there are opinions posted online that do not always relate in any way to reality; maybe it's that inability we all seem to have in the internet age to rank them according to their worth. (Worth again being a value judgment, and no, I don't know where I was going with that.)
Alternately, that reminds me of arguments I've read about TV images of women. For example, often critics can make a good argument about how a show is not actually feminist because of X, Y, and Z. Yet if women watch the show and feel empowered by it because they don't see X, Y, or Z, or because they reject X, Y, and Z as relevant criteria for feminism, is it then feminist for them anyhow?
MY POINT, MAYBE
Perhaps instead of droning on and on about the wild segues of thought your comments cause me to experience, I should just ask outright about some things. What's the root of the behind-the-scenes, long-running gag about Chuck the rapist? What's the latest foofaraw from proponents of Dair about? Are you actually getting nasty emails about your recaps or are you reacting to comments you've read somewhere else? You don't have to answer of course, it's none of my business, but I am curious because of the allusions to this background conversation in your recaps.
So I've written this overly lengthy letter to you because I am interested in your opinions on any of the topics I've raised, should you care to engage with them. The hints I get from your recaps and Facebook posts always intrigue me and make me think. I believe that your point of view on things is different than mine; not in an argument-causing, diametrically opposed way, but in an interesting, "never thought of it that way, not sure I agree but also not sure I don't" kind of way. If that makes sense.
To end (finally), just wanted to say thanks, again, for your words. This is a poor way to repay them, but in some ways apt.
Your long-winded and unfocused friend,
Tami
P.S. I'm actively and only somewhat successfully resisting the urge to qualify all of the above in a way that makes myself seem more clever and less derivative. Oh, well. Guess I'll post it anyway.
