Am I the only goth who is really uncomfortable with “Hannibal” due to the horrible transmisogyny in “Silence of the Lambs”?
I think you have to consider Silence of the Lambs was written in 1988 and the knowledge the general public had about transsexuals let alone their attitude towards them was a whole different ball game than it is today. Thomas Harris, for the crassness on how the subject is treated, does a decent job of explaining that being transsexual does not make one a serial killer considering the time era.
All great works of art are products of their time and will reflect that. You learn to acknowledge without it getting in the way of your enjoyment. Just like other great works of literature reflect the racist and sexist time era they were written in but that doesn’t devalue their significance.
ooc: But… But I do like romantic and sexual relationships in fandoms. I usually write Armand/Daniel as romantic and sexual. I have many other ships that I love reading or writing in romantic and sexual ways. I have nothing against them at all. I certainly didn’t “blast” anyone for having them or liking them. I merely suggested that people stop holding up romance/sexual encounters over everything else as if they are the only sorts of relationships or encounters that matter.
Romance is important. But not important to all people because some people are aromantic. Sexual relationships are important to a lot of people. But not to all people because some people are asexual and some fall somewhere on the gray-ace scale. (And that doesn’t mean an aromantic asexual can’t enjoy reading or writing those things, as well. Just that romance and sex aren’t a priority for everyone.)
Fandom tends to put romantic ships on pedestal above all others. Probably because fandom on tumblr especially is obsessed with Shipping. People Ship It and if you don’t Ship It, you’re a “hater.” But not everything has to be a romantic ship.
Fandom also tends to take non-romantic and non-sexual canon relationships and turn them into something romantic, and that’s awesome. Fandom is all about taking canon and exploring all of its possibilities. If people want to write Jace Wayland and Simon Lewis as romantic, well, show me the slash fic! I am there.But I don’t want people holding up Jace/Simon as though it’s better as a romantic ship than a bromance or friendship, because platonic friendships and familial relationships and non-romantic love are important, too. And while it’s fun to read and write smut and sexytimes and UST and all forms of sexual tension, it’s also fun to explore other aspects and dynamics and levels of love/friendship/frenemies beyond messing up the sheets.
I would describe Guillermo del Toro as compassionate because he sees the good in everyone even his monsters. (x)
Yes, I’m on (another) Crimson Peak posting spree, but I wanted to specifically point out what Tom Hiddleston says: “beauty in places that many of us would fear to look.” That sounds VERY familiar to me, as my definition of goth/gothic is looking for “beauty and wonder in dark or unsettling places”.
But in chronological order. Like, you start way back with Akasha and Enkil in season 1 and work your way down the timeline and so get to see how all these different stories and characters intertwine over the centuries
takemetocoffin-or-losemeforever tagged: #yes yes and yes #for now I’d be more than happy with a IWTV honest trailer #but a TV show would be soooo great #nobody works for a tv network or something like that around here?
Yasss, agreed w/ Takemetocoffin, and aliceallanpoe, may I add: #PREACH #just don’t let anyone who worked on the QOTD movie anywhere near this okwe already had one flop thanks
being passionate is so good man it gives your life some kinda purpose who cares if it’s for a tv show or a book or movie or literally whatever being passionate is great don’t let anyone make you feel bad about your passions!!!
There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity. It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away. If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it. And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it. This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common. So, why do I think it’s a problem?
FICTION
An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction? Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies? To only see happy things? As escapism? That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.
For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols. It’s a means of expression. What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new.
For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely. Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others. Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing. It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.
But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you. Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile. Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped. Thought is not crime.
CENSORSHIP
Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them. But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive.
What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable. What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis. Sad songs can be beautiful. Horror stories can be fun. When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s. I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.
So, why is this important to me? Why does it scare me? Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant. When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later. Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims. No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material. Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified. When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that. Can’t be helped.” Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.
SENSITIVITY
To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”. Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real. I would never belittle someone else’s pain. But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world. Not all content is made with you in mind. It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy. The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms. It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime. Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it.
THE ANSWER
What I would love to see is a perspective shift. I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host. If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work. I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it. No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves. Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly. Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.
Accept others. Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself). Understand that not all content is meant for you. Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm. That’s all I’m asking.
(please don’t let this become a shitstorm… TT _ TT)
I-want-my-IWTV 