I’m now on week four of my new job, and things are going splendidly
(For those of you who don’t know, four weeks ago I transitioned to a full time
job in visitor services at a local arboretum.) I took a walk at lunch time
yesterday and, walking through a stand of really magnificent conifers, realized
“They actually PAY ME to show up here every day!” It was a really good
realization that I need to make more often, because I've been a little down lately.
Don’t get me wrong – my new co-workers are lovely, lovely people.
But I’m easily the youngest person on staff by twenty years and as such, I have
a different sensibility about the way the world works and a totally different
view on pop culture.
As I put it to my friend the other day, there is a large nerd-shaped
hole in my work life.
At both of my other jobs, I had people I could
talk to about movies and books and sci-fi things, and make Star Trek jokes, and
that was awesome. Now I’m still trying to figure out if anyone will understand my
Star Trek jokes, let alone laugh at them.
Put
it this way: I didn't know I liked being able to publicly identify as a nerd
and with other nerds/geeks/fans until that identification didn't make a
connection with people.
I
think my more recent involvement in Tumblr has something to do with this as
well – on tumblr, everyone is all fandom all the time. They’re excited to share
things they make and find, and I love that enthusiasm.
I also like to share and ‘real life reblog’ with
WILD abandon. We have a board at work where we can write what wildlife we've seen,
and you have no idea how excited I get
when I see a new bird and I have something to write on the board. I do this
with birds, with books I've read, movies I've seen, and especially movies I
want to see.
Except
now I have no one to reblog to.
Well,
the temporary solution to this problem is going to be dinner after work with my
good friend, former co-worker and all-around lovely person on Friday. For the
purposes of this blog post and the internet, we’ll call her Artemis. Last
night, in planning for said dinner, we talked about a number of museum things
(I consider her someone I can talk about professional development stuff with) and then I said we should make time to see the
new Thor movie (we initially bonded over the Avengers films.)
She
said this was a GREAT idea, and then she asked a rather interesting question. “Is
it bad that I’m more excited to see Loki rather than any other character in
that movie?”
I
assured her I did not think this was bad in the slightest, and observed that there's
a whole HUGE group of people on the internet who fangirl Loki like it's not
cool to fangirl Thor.
Please
don’t mistake me, I think Loki is a fascinating character, both in the
mythological sense and in the Marvel sense. I just can’t get my head around supporting the
embodiment of mischief. My personal mythological fangirlyness has always been
directed at Tyr, the son of Odin who loses his hand fighting Fenrir and who is
supposed to be the embodiment of the valor befitting warriors. The mythological
Thor seemed a little mainstream. And so, it seems, is the Marvel Thor
considered a little mainstream.
“It’s
the bad boy thing,” Artemis explained. “Girls have this inner need to take care
of or help the "lost, dark soul" kind of guy. Thor, on the other hand,
is a jock type.”
I
agree with this statement. In real life, we often have very little patience for
jock types whose confidence and braggadocio can be overwhelming, especially for
people who have never had confidence like that. Loki as a character is much
more accessible. Particularly in the first movie, where so much of his story
line is about trying to find himself. Thor in the first film is also trying to
find himself in the wake of loosing Mjolnir and being kicked out of Asgard, but
not to the same extent that Loki is. For
fans, and I think particularly for the young women to whom a tortured, dark
soul appeals, his story is one they see
reflected in their own lives, where they too are searching for meaning and
identity. One of the places they find
their identity is in their fandoms, which leads me back to the issue of identity
that I was having, and that Artemis was fulfilling for me with this
conversation, and that I am now fulfilling with this blog post.
Anyway.
“Also,”
Artemis went on, “A TON of fangirls ship Loki/Thor, which is interesting.”
What
do you know, another part of fan identity! I commented that, at least in my fan
practice, fangirls as a general rule tend to ship M/M ships. There's actually a
considerable body of research on why that I couldn’t get into during the course
of our conversation, but some psychologists and media studies folks think this
is because many young female fans are at a point in their lives where they may
feel threatened or intimidated by the thought of romantic involvement, and
therefore writing a relationship that they don’t need to see themselves inside
can be grounding. Other media studies folks explain that M/M shipping is a way
to rebel or talk back against heteronorming inside mainstream media, which also
appeals to teenagers who are trying to explore their sexuality.
Whatever
the case may be, I have never considered myself one of those fans. From day one
inside the fandom, if I was going to be a fan of a male character, I was also
going to write myself (or a better, prettier, much more interesting version of myself)
into the story, there was going to be lots of really fabulous, M/F sexual encounters,
and that was going to be that. (I have a
pretty stable, boring, mainstream gender identity – probably more information
than you wanted to know.)
“Another part of my issue,” she explained, “is
that there are so few well written OCs (male or female) so even when a
character is clearly straight [inside the text] it can be easier to see an
emotional connection between them and another male rather than a poorly written
female OC.”
Now,
that I whole-heartedly agree with. OCs are a sticky wicket. But the reason for
me writing those characters is also one of the reason I think M/M shipping
occurs at the level it does-- because there is a general dearth of female
characters inside many mainstream fandoms.
It's simply easier to make an M/M friendship into something more than pairing
them with an existing female character, or trying to write a believable original
female character, or OC. As a reader, I
want a place to see myself inside the text, which is why I strongly champion,
or flat out make up, more female characters. (In general, I think I've been
pretty good at writing OCs in the past, and I haven’t gotten too many
complaints about them so far.)
“I
can support any ship there is evidence for,” Artemis went on. “That people who just
throw two characters together who never interact or have any chemistry is a
little annoying.” This much I think we can all agree on. “But with the
Thor/Loki, I'm the fence, because if you looked at it from the right angle,
there could be underlying emotion going on. Even more so when you add in the
deleted scenes from the movie.”
I
get that. That makes sense to me. The Sherlock/John ship makes sense to me. The
Frodo/Sam ship makes sense to me. Heck, even the Kirk/Spock ship makes sense to
me. I’m not hating on valid and wonderfully close readings and interpretations
of our fan texts. I think that’s great, and as I've gotten older, I've given
these ships more credit than I had in the past because I see the close reading
that goes into legitimizing those relationships, and I am in awe of some of it.
(I just don’t want your Fili/Kili slash on my dashboard. Sorry. Brothers are
different.)
But,
as I explained to Artemis, another part of me gets kind of angry because I feel
like shipping for some of those reasons almost de-values deep friendships
between males, like they can't happen without having a romantic root. And I
don't think that's fair to men. Not just fictional men, not just John and
Sherlock, not just Frodo and Sam – all men. When two female characters have a
close friendship, I don’t see the same kind of F/F shipping sprouting up that I
see when two men do, just as in real life two women can get away with being
much, much closer than two men seem to be able to without people reading the relationship
as something that it isn't.
And I really don’t think that’s fair.
I
wish I had someplace interesting and concrete to go with all of this, but I don’t.
I suppose the point I could be making is that identity, especially fan identity, is
important to all of us, we should find it where we can, hold up and defend the
personally chosen identities of others, and strive, always, to incorporate them
and the values they stand for into our real lives as well.
Whatever it is, Artemis is coming over for dinner tomorrow night, and we
shall make a good night of it and be fans together.
"“Also,” Artemis went on, “A TON of fangirls ship Loki/Thor, which is interesting.”
ReplyDeleteWhat do you know, another part of fan identity! I commented that, at least in my fan practice, fangirls as a general rule tend to ship M/M ships. There's actually a considerable body of research on why that I couldn’t get into during the course of our conversation, but some psychologists and media studies folks think this is because many young female fans are at a point in their lives where they may feel threatened or intimidated by the thought of romantic involvement, and therefore writing a relationship that they don’t need to see themselves inside can be grounding. Other media studies folks explain that M/M shipping is a way to rebel or talk back against heteronorming inside mainstream media, which also appeals to teenagers who are trying to explore their sexuality."
-- Never occurred to them that these fangirls are just despicable human beings? Plus, Thor and Loki have a brotherly relationship, so they're pretty much shipping incest.
"I get that. That makes sense to me. The Sherlock/John ship makes sense to me. The Frodo/Sam ship makes sense to me. Heck, even the Kirk/Spock ship makes sense to me. I’m not hating on valid and wonderfully close readings and interpretations of our fan texts. I think that’s great, and as I've gotten older, I've given these ships more credit than I had in the past because I see the close reading that goes into legitimizing those relationships, and I am in awe of some of it."
Close reading. Close reading. So making clearly straight men homosexual for the sole reason of homosexual equals close reading. No two men can be best friends without being gay, and in the case of Thor and Loki, both men had women in their lives.
The entire M/M slash obsession has nothing to do with bad female OCs. It is stemmed from a hatred of the norm, of Christianity, and of a normalization of homosexuality. It has become so mainstream that fangirls honestly believe it is right and will not accept heterosexual relationships. It should also be mentioned that these fangirls are by far the most intolerant and misogynistic individuals to ever exist.
My nose crinkles at your Wimminz Studies, by the way, which is not a serious academic pursuit aside from the minds of feminists.
“It’s the bad boy thing,” Artemis explained. “Girls have this inner need to take care of or help the "lost, dark soul" kind of guy. Thor, on the other hand, is a jock type.”
No, girls love emos because they're easier to get to.
"I have a pretty stable, boring, mainstream gender identity – probably more information than you wanted to know.)"
Yes, because being a sexy, child-molesting, perverted homosexual makes you awesome. And already with your "gender identity" nonsense, I am inclined to believe you are of the type who believes there are 32 genders.
For that, your advice is useless.