Once a Stranger

coffeeandink

Loki is both Thor's brother and an alien, a friend and a traditional enemy, every strangeness and every unfitting (unfit) aspect now an answer instead of a puzzle. So long as Thor can only comprehend the Asgardian narrative, the Allfather's narrative, he cannot acknowledge that Loki the Liesmith has been lied to all his life; Loki the usurper has been kidnapped from his home, Loki the ambitious has always been treated as innately not-quite-right.

brownbetty

The thing is, I have the idea that what Loki is suffering is among other things, a crisis of morality. The Asgardian moral decision making flowchart seems to look more or less like this:

Should I do $thing?

Is it something Odin would do?
if yes: Goto 2.
if no: Goto 3.

Are you Odin?
if yes: You're Odin! Do what the hell you want!
if no: No way, man, that shit ain't right.

Will it make you sound awesome when it is immortalized in epic verse?
if yes: Do it! Definitely the ethical course.
if no: Don't do it. Unless it's punching a Jotunn. That's always hilarious right.

The thing that all these stories have in common is whether it’s a Monster, a Golem, or Magneto, you are dealing with the pure unadulterated result of what happens when you ostracize a minority to the breaking point and then instead of realizing that you created this destructive force to begin with, you turn around and blame the very creature itself and call it the monster.

cluegirl

When I saw The Avengers the first time, Loki's scornful "Sentiment" as he shanks Thor, (accompanied by the tear he will deny until the last breath is wrung out of him,) is the one I remembered. It was a beautiful line, and it was a beautiful, breathtaking moment, and it was meant to shine.

However upon second watching, I noticed an even more beautiful pattern to Joss's use of that word in other places. Sentiment. It's not a two dollar word, really, is it? You don't lay even odds on getting to hear it on any given day, because it's not an everyday word, or notion -- unless you own or work in a gift shop that specializes in engraving.

But that word is used in the Avengers four times. And each time it's spoken with scorn about something the speaker is trying to disprove -- and each time, the speaker fails to disprove anything at all, and in fact that point goes on to be staggeringly proven later on. It is, if I may say so, a beautiful evidence of Joss Whedon's actual skill as a writer well beyond snappy dialogue.

minnaway

9. If Loki/Bruce/Tony are one triangle, Bruce/Tony/Steve are another. Coulson tells Steve that Bruce isn't just the "thing" but a very smart person; Tony tells Steve that even without the suit he's a genius etc. etc. etc.; Bruce was trying to be Steve; Tony says everything special in Steve came from a bottle.

10. And Odin/Thor/Loki are mirrored by Fury/Steve/Tony. Loki notes that Odin had to summon...dark energy? dark matter? something or other? whatever, the point is, expend a shitlot of energy to get Thor to Midgard without the Bifrost; Fury has to call in cards and negotiate with the powers above him to get the Avengers Initiative in process. Odin traded his eye for ravens; Fury has a zillion electronic eyes keeping the earth under surveillance. Fury and Steve and Tony post Coulson's death, marking out the points of a triangle, and Tony with his chair half swiveled away.

(And Loki and Clint steal an eye specifically.)

Gender isn't simply a biological trait; it's a societal one. The female experience is different from that of the male, and if, as a male writer, you cannot accept that basic premise, then you will never, ever, be able to write women well. A man walking alone through Midtown Manhattan at three in the morning may have concerns for his safety, but I promise you, it's a very different experience for a woman taking the same walk, and it's different again for a man wearing a dress. Think about it. That's a societal factor, and it's a gendered one, and this is not and can not be subject to debate. If you're looking to argue that sexism is a thing of the past, that the world is gender-blind, you're not only wrong, you're lying to yourself.

rexluscus

When Odin places his Jötunn foundling in Frigga's arms, she knows what is to come.

AVENGERS SPOILERS!!!

One minute Clint's reaching for his gun to stop Loki stealing the Tesseract, the next he's shooting Fury and taking it. Easy as switching sides.

Billy casts the most dubious of spells and gets into a shitload of trouble when he switches places with William Lensherr, Prince of Genosha, member of the House of M.

Love is for children.

After his fall from the Bifrost, Loki finds himself taken in by a suburban family and lacking most of his magic. He resolves to escape them as soon as possible. This does not go the way he planned.

Yesterday, my husband and I rewatched Season 1 of Sherlock. It’s an awesome show, and one that was made even better by repeat viewing in all respects save one: the treatment of the women. I’ve blogged before, pointedly and with bitterness, about the terrible things Steven Moffat routinely does to his female characters in Doctor Who, and though his motives seem to stem more from ignorance than malice, the results are nonetheless unpleasant.

Early on, we’re introduced to Molly Hooper, Sherlock’s contact at the morgue. His obliviousness to her interest in him is played for laughs, which is fine and as it should be; what’s less fine is the way he consistently and cruelly criticises her appearance, which is also played for laughs.
[...]

It would be a mistake to consider these narratives, however, without the context of their time period. While they might be offensive to some today, these female characters are progressive for their time in terms of what roles women play. Uhura was hugely significant, because she was an officer who had a job that involved more technology and know-how than making coffee; Barbara Gordon was one of the first female action heroes who acted on her own.

It’s relatively easy to compare social values of the sixties and of the current decade, and conclude that the position of women has significantly changed. What remains unclear is whether current treatment of women in fiction has improved proportionately. Reboots, meanwhile, provide the unique opportunity to directly compare the treatment of those values in narrative while taking into account the context of changed social environment. By taking the same story and telling it in two different time periods, one can easily juxtapose the treatment of values against said time periods.

[...]

However, there are some reboots in which the changed role of women in the narrative is not merely a recapitulation, but actually seems to be a regression. That is, not only has the treatment of women in narrative not improved proportionately to the changed role of women in society; some of these reboots would seem significantly behind their source texts even in the sixties. Christopher Nolan’s Batman reboot, J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot, and to some extent Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who sequels and Sherlock Holmes re-imaging in some respects make female characters of the sixties sometimes look damn good.

What if suddenly, instantly, the power of white femininity were transferred to black women?

The answer is clear – Black women would represent value, purity, and based on their natural traits; be worthy of protection and instantly become the objects of universal desire. White women would represent the opposite.

“Beauty tar potion” would become globally popular to get the “black look”. “Dove” would be replaced with a black soap called “Raven” to help exfoliate the skin and bring out subtle hints of melanin.

White female features would be declared violent. Their “jagged” thin lips, “knife sharp” noses, and “harsh” jaw lines would be nature’s way of declaring why men have a natural preference for the soft features of black women. Soft lips, soft cheekbones, and soft round noses would be proof of natural femininity.
Full pink lips and large dark eyes would become associated with virginal black girls, whose purity must not be compromised. Black female features would thus be said to represent youth.

oyceter

SF book fandom, where are you?

Although a few authors and editors have come out against what WS and KC have done, where is the rest of the fandom? Like Jane says earlier, "Where are the con-comms, going apeshit to distance themselves from these serial fails of race and culture? Where are the guests-of-honor, specifically inviting underserved communities to visit at an upcoming con? (Where are the "discount if this is your first con evar" programs?) Why aren't the SF organizations like SFWA (okay, bad example) having a cow and putting out official position statements on outreach? Where are press-releases from the publishing houses, explaining their diversity efforts (in their lists and in their workplaces)?"

Why the resounding silence? Editors, authors, fans—all the people who were not talking about RaceFail and what people in their field were doing: where are they?

If the prior months of RaceFail were "both sides behaving badly" (which I disagree with), what is this, and why has no one said anything?

Mely previously wrote, "Is group protest always right or good? No, it's not. It's a way to establish and enforce community norms, and it's only as right and good as the community norms are. It can be profoundly oppressive and profoundly abusive. But silence in the face of injury is also a way to establish and enforce community norms. You don't opt out of a community by remaining in it and never commenting on its big controversies; you just opt to abide by whatever party wins."

What SF book fandom is telling me—a woman, a person of color, and a long-time fan of SF books and a con-goer—what you are telling me is that you don't care. That these are, in fact, your community norms, that you are all right with people who have more power in your community (by virtue of profession, race, and gender) using that power to harm other, less powerful, members of your community. That you are fine with the erasure of women, of people of color, of those without the same professional privileges you enjoy, and that you are willing to stand by silently and let people be hurt. This is how it affects us. This. And this.

Your silence speaks volumes.

50books_poc

verb_noire

rydra_wong