reileen: (Default)
Nick Mamatas ([livejournal.com profile] nihilistic_kid) writes about the trend of "fantatwee" in recent fantasy stories:


There are two major families of fantatwee, the first being the retold unreconstructed fairy tale. These stories recite a fairy tale, generally something from Grimm and very very often a retelling of Snow White (and sometimes Snow White with vampires). The second type of fantatwee are stories about how awesome fantasy stories are.

At the risk of engaging in a little biocrit, many young people find solace in fantasy stories. It's escapism, which isn't all that dirty a word. Plenty of realist literature is escapist as well — one simply escapes into the world of aspirational middle-class problems in which one's relations drink and then sit on a sofa to weep as opposed to drinking and then balling up their fists to smash your head in because the rice was burnt. There was escapism in the Gulags too. Escapism is not, by itself, an evil. It is no surprise that these young readers, when they grow up, attempt to recreate the joyous bits of their childhoods by writing stories with this same escapist quality.

Unfortunately, fantatwee is all about second-order escapism. Many great stories have elements of escapism, but also a twist of a thematic screw that lets the reader know that not everything is strawberries and cream. Hard choices get made. Misery abides. In the film version of Return of the King, Frodo may have had a big pillow fight with his friends and then moped about the house for a bit. In the book, he was a shattered man, utterly alienated from his communitarian society. That's what you get for saving the world from doom.

On that note, I've received Mamatas' novels Under My Roof and Move Under Ground, which were being sold as a set for about $7 directly from his publisher's website. I'm...not sure why I thought this was a good idea, since I probably could have gotten two manga volumes off Amazon for that price that I could have added to add to some of my still-incomplete series, but hey, I like Mamatas' blog, so why not support him, and anyway, books!

-Reileen
passion turns pain into ecstasy
reileen: (Default)
Guest contributor to Racialicious, Kate Harding, posts about racism fatigue and the issues that it brings up, with regards to responses to a racist cover for Vogue featuring LeBron Johnson and Giselle Bundchen.

I'm going to dump a long quote on y'all in a moment - I've tried to snip some parts, but insights are packed into nearly every sentence, so it was a bit hard to do. Nevertheless, here we go:

And it can be especially important to talk about the subtle things, because that’s where privilege reveals itself most clearly. Any white person who’s neither an idiot nor an asshole can see and deplore the racism in, say, this image. But we can’t all see it in the Vogue cover. So when we start talking about the Vogue cover as part of a long tradition of racist imagery that casts African-American men as aggressive apes, we get a much more useful conversation going. Instead of just a bunch of white liberals saying, “That’s horrible!” and a bunch of white supremacists saying, “No, it’s right on!” we get to see all the grey areas of privilege brought out in the open: those of us who try to be anti-racist and educate ourselves accordingly but still missed the racism there until it was pointed out to us; those of us who sorta see it once it’s pointed out but still think people are making a mountain out of a molehill; and most importantly, those of us who missed it in the first place and, on the basis of that, continue to insist it is not there.

We’ve been talking a lot around here recently about that last category of people, with regard to sexism. And as a woman and a feminist, I can tell you those people are FUCKING INFURIATING. The people who actually live as the subjects of discrimination and hatred are not oversensitive; we are sensitized to the more subtle manifestations of those things, because we’ve seen how they’re wielded against us, over and over and fucking over. So many people have trouble grokking the concept of “privilege” and will respond to having their own pointed out with laundry lists of the disadvantages they’ve experienced in their lives. But privilege, in this sense, is not just about obvious advantages. It is about the luxury of not seeing the subtle shit.

As a white person, I haven’t been sensitized to covert racism by a lifetime of experiences. Unlike a person of color who has no choice but to see and feel it every day, I actually do have to “go looking for it”; my privilege could otherwise allow me to go through life believing it doesn’t exist. Because I care about being anti-racist, I do go looking, do make an effort to educate myself about patterns of racism I wouldn’t automatically recognize–and to question myself when my kneejerk reaction is, “Oh, come on–I’m supposed to believe that’s racist?”

But because I’m white, I also have the option of not looking any time I don’t feel like it. That’s what privilege is. It’s the option to ignore nasty shit that doesn’t directly affect my own life, my career, my relationships, my bank account, my social standing, my housing situation, etc. And I won’t lie to you–I take that option plenty. [. . .] I spend most of my activism energy on feminist issues and fat issues, things that affect me directly.

And you know, I don’t even feel guilty about some of that. Each one of us can only do so much, and I’d wager most of us spend more energy on things that affect us directly than on things that don’t. Even among those things, we pick and choose. [. . .] In the big picture, that’s fine. No one has to save the world single-handedly.

But those of us who care about social justice have no excuse for not being aware of issues that don’t affect us directly, or for not taking people seriously when they tell us something that’s hidden behind the screen of our own privilege really is there. None of us has an excuse for wanting to maintain that privilege regardless of whom it hurts. And for my money, there is no better education in privilege for those who need one–and that includes all of us who have it, no matter how many times we’ve read “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”–than these heated conversations about the more subtle forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sizeism, ableism, what-have-you. Because that’s when it really comes out. That’s when people start making the “I don’t see it, so IT IS NOT THERE” arguments, and the “You people are just looking for things to get pissed about!” arguments. There’s a lot to be learned from those.

I don’t have to go looking for instances of sexism and sizeism to get pissed off about; I’m a fat woman, so they find me. But I do look for instances of other forms of bigotry, because in so many cases, if I don’t look, I won’t see them. And those of us with privilege need to look. So the problem with a Wesley Morris telling us certain instances of racism should be beneath our notice, or a Charlotte Allen telling us pretty much all of sexism should be, is that it gives those who really need to look a handy excuse not to. And it’s a hell of a lot easier to look for excuses not to care than to look at experiences outside our own.


But if you've got time on your hands, go read the whole article.
-Reileen
baptized with a perfect name
reileen: (Default)
Fred Clark over at Slacktivist always has great posts, with great commenters to match, and he recently posted an analysis of ABC's charity show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition that looks at the significance of the show with regards to what that means for the idea of charity and the importance of material wealth in America - as well as showing that not all of these extreme makeovers have had a happy ending.

Daddykins liked to complain about why it was such-and-such family that got a new house, and not, you know, us or someone else. I always thought there was something off about his reaction, but Fred's post helped me verbalize what it was. It's a mixture of two things: the idea that the poor are somehow undeserving of being helped (has to do with the whole "American Dream" and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.), and this sense of jealousy, of "Why can't we have that? What makes them so special?"

Which then goes into another part of Fred's post, where he talks about the "misery inflation" that's been going on in the show recently. Basically, the shows' producers have been looking for increasingly more and more miserable families, like two girls with leukemia or things like that, in order to increase the pathos that viewers feel with the family on screen. It's meant as a way to fend off the envy that people like my dad may feel when watching the show.

Sorry I can't put together more insightful or coherent thoughts about this, but you all should check this out.

-Reileen
see, I'd have all the money in the world/if I was a wealthy girl

Profile

reileen: (Default)
Reileen van Kaile

April 2010

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags