This plot:

1. Ianto is sick/hurt.

2. Jack and Owen care for him! Owen is gruff but protective, Jack is concerned and tender.

3. Tosh is mousy and Gwen is insensitive, but in about 50% of stories, you never know this because...

4. Tosh and Gwen are relegated to being [quote]"the girls"[/unquote], who invariably are dispatched to do Ianto's shopping for him.

(4a. If it's a gen story in particular, SOMETIMES you get a POV shift to "the girls" where somewhere on the astral plane, Alison Bechdel is weeping while Tosh tells Gwen to stop being insensitive about Ianto because he and Jack are IN LOVE OMG GWEN HOW COULD YOU NOT SEE IT?)


SRSLY. How many stories?

... I sort of feel like making a flow chart of dodgy TW fic cliches. Would that be bear poking? (Is making this a post public bear poking?)

[Poll #1519127]

This poll on Dth: http://hope.dreamwidth.org/1631742.html

This poll on LJ: http://angstslashhope.livejournal.com/1611906.html

One of the fanfiction tropes that really doesn't gel with me in Torchwood Jack/Ianto slash is the one where Ianto's body structure/type is lean and delicate (in contrast to Jack's beefy manliness, of course). Because, seriously, even knowing of the epic airbrushing of torsos in The Hothouse Scene, ( are you BLIND? )

And speaking of, one of the reasons I love this cast diary video so much is because of the extended groping-of-John-Barrowman's-muffin-top scene [around 1.30 timestamp].

*cackles with glee*

Meanwhile, because naturally I cannot keep my 'shipping glee out of this post (not that I'm trying to), I have such epic love for ( these screencaps )

/end shippy ramble.

Oh, show fandom 'ship.


[screencaps yoinked from nikki4noo's picspams, which were previously yoinked from elsewhere, and so on ad infinitum...]

Re: fucked-up relationships, Ianto Jones = Dr. Allison Cameron.

No wait, bear with me for a second... ( eh, cut for spoilers for Torchwood season 1 )

Yesterday I stole Karen and made her watch the first two Die Hard films with me. I totally love #4 even more, now.

I love action films. Mainly, I love seeing them at the cinema. I had never seen a Die Hard film before I went to see #4 at the theatre about a month ago, and I'm surprised by how much I heart its cheesy goodness.

It was weird and awesome to see how WEE McClane was in the first one, and how his character has changed by the 4th. One of the things I enjoyed most about the 4th one was the MAD MACGUYVER SKILLZ OF IMPROVISATION! It's something I love in action films as much as the fact that fight scenes are choreographed these days; the creative staging of action sequences. It's one of the things I love most about the Bourne films - that uber-skilled action hero who can fashion a killing machine out of a burnt match and a bag of sugar.

Anyway, my point is, I love #4 even more now after seeing how innocent and unskilled McClane is in the first two films. He's just winging it, constantly with the monologue of "this sucks, why me!?" By the fourth he's totally beat down and jaded. He's learnt it all the hard way. Bourne was trained to be slick and badass, McClane had to learn it on the fly and at great price, and he certainly isn't slick, but I love that he doesn't complain any more, just sucks it up and deals (with a kind of bitter enjoyment).

Which brings me to:

[Poll #1053382]

As if there is any QUESTION!

ETA: *chants* JOHN! JOHN! JOHN!

I need to get hold of Die Hard 3, now.

We are finally home from the con. We should have been back about 3 hours ago, but our train stopped just outside of Coventry and didn't start again until 2 hours later. Joy!

Anyhoo, have had a quick skim of the flist and seen very little about Jensen's rather interesting panel session this afternoon.

Indeed, there were interesting questions.

It was very easy to tell when a question made him uncomfortable, because there was facepalming. The more uncomfortable, the more facepalming. All the questions about Dean & the show made him very enthusiastic and excited. Questions like, "what do you think are your best and worst physical features?"* and "if you had to write a personals ad for yourself, what would it say?" resulted in moderate facepalming.

The question, "You said in the panel yesterday that you were very protective of Dean. What do you think of fanfiction?" made him practically crawl behind the chair he was facepalming so much.

I don't even remember his very brief answer about 'fanfiction' because he launched right into "some really imaginative/crazy [can't remember exact wording, but def wasn't positive] fans write something called Wincest..." (cue more facepalming). He did handle it quite well, though he was clearly very uncomfortable.

Of course, about fifteen minutes later, someone else asked a question that was something like: "is there gay subtext between Sam and Dean?" (I didn't quite hear it, just got the gist), which, personally, I think is quite a valid question!! But it was met with another anxious moan from the audience, and Jensen adamantly declaring (and facepalming) that a) THEY'RE BROTHERS! and b) Kripke knows about all the Wincest/gay stuff, and puts in these little 'jokes' to poke fun and show how ridiculous and outrageous that idea is.

(...clearly, that's working out for them.)

Anyway, Jensen said that he and Jared only found out about Wincest BECAUSE KIM MANNERS GAVE SOME TO THEM. I could not love Kim Manners any more, at this point. (I would kill to know what/who's story he gave them!)

I'm not sure how I feel about those questions. Well, I feel fine about the gay subtext question - I think it would be more of a problem if people thought that it was a problem to ask about gay subtext at a convention - given that it's common practice that people were asking about het love interests and dynamics on the show. But it did come at a time in that panel where Wincest was already at the front of everyone's minds.

The fanfiction question is a sticky one. Some fans are adamant that it was incredibly inappropriate, that it's something that's seen but not heard/admitted to (on either side). But the old practices are changing anyway, I think, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, a lot of the practices of passing on etiquette is no longer present, but I think some of the 'rules' have - or should - become obsolete anyway.

The person that asked that question asked it of pretty much every guest at every panel; Alona Tal, upon being asked if she looked at websites/forums/etc, said she reads "everything. EVERYTHING." Nicki Aycox and Brooke Nevin seemed bemused, but relatively positive about support and imagination. Nicki had received fanfic about Meg in the mail from a fan, and had been blown away and utterly impressed by how awesome it was; Brooke suggested fans write episodes of the show themselves. Someone asked Alison Mack a question about the Clark/Lex and she very frankly said that the rescusitation scene in the pilot drew in a huge fanbase because of its homoeroticism - and she didn't seem to think anything was wrong with that. or with saying that.

I don't know. I think it's just as easy to find fanfiction as any fan website these days, and with TV producers becoming more connected with audiences and fans (and definitely seeing the benefit of that!), they're definitely less likely to just turn a blind eye to what the fans are doing and saying. And by 'they' I mean not only the actors (like Alona, who reads all the forums etc), but the producers and creators.

I think for me, my opinion on all of this is formed by my firm belief that fanfiction - including slash - isn't something that should be considered shameful.

I don't think that guests at conventions should be made uncomfortable by inappropriate questions. I think that if they are clearly uncomfortable, then questioners/audience/fans should back off.

But ideally, i'd like a world where asking about fanfiction doesn't make the guest - or the rest of the audience - uncomfortable. I really liked the way Nicki and Brooke dealt with the question; I didn't like the way I'm sure a lot of the audience held their breath and/or muttered to the person sitting next to them and/or shook their heads in disapproval.

I think the fact that the audience let out a big lascivious moan en masse when the girl at Jensen's panel asked about fanfiction only served to support his discomfort.

Basically, I think I want everyone to stop thinking that fanfiction, slash or no, is something to be ashamed of.

Especially with television texts, the boundaries of the characters are so open anyway, I don't think it is something that should invoke a concept of violation of those characters and who portrays them ('Dean' is written by a range of script writers, directed by a number of directors, has input from Jensen, is re-written by comics authors and novelists and whoever wrote the material on the official website...).

Anyway, it's late, and my brain surge upon walking home in the rain has subsided again.

All in all, a good weekend :)




* Answer to best & worse physical features question: Jensen facepalming, looking uncomfortable, then surreptitiously glancing down at his crotch. Then, when the crowd cheered, saying "well, yaknow, and worse would be... bow legs. An awful set of Texas bow legs."

Grr. I am SO SICK of the derision of popular culture that goes on in mainstream media (ironically enough) and society in Australia. More specifically, the dismissal of it as a valid field within which to base critical theory.

Every time I mention to someone outside of my field of interest that I’m studying – gasp! - television, their response is frequently one of scorn. Someone even questioned whether it was possible for “TV theory” to exist at all!

To which my response was: dude. It has such a huge influence on our lives, and you’re saying it’s not worth the time of day?

There is this tenaciously clinging assumption in Australian society that ‘real’ culture, the only culture that holds any value, is this classical (and at times, arthouse) European culture. There are huge literature, art history and history departments; people still kind of blink puzzledly at me when I say I’m majoring in “Media Theory”, or to dumb it down further – “Cinema studies”.

Popular culture is, of course, linked inextricably with American culture, as this article demonstrates:

For $25m cash, unis say: kick me
( Read more... )


The tone of which irritates the crap out of me again. The thought of a United States Study Centre at my university sends me into fits of delirious delight. The bulk of politically correct society in Australia may have little respect for George Bush, but the absolute conflation of American culture with American government is a big mistake to make. Just because our Prime Minister like to kiss the US President’s butt doesn’t mean that media texts produced by American artists (or whatever you’d like to call the creators of contemporary texts) should be dismissed and derided.

I agree that the volume of American culture in comparison to texts produced from other places (including our own country) is problematic. But I still say that regardless of ill will toward Administration or desire for more diversity, popular culture has a huge, huge influence on our lives.

I say, acknowledging that and working to be active within it and take our own interpretations of it is a more appropriate – if not necessary – course of action to take instead of covering our metaphorical ears and eyes against the nuclear blast and continuing to reminisce on the ‘good ole days’ of the Italian Renaissance, fer frick’s sake.

Not that there’s anything wrong with studying the Italian Renaissance, hell no. But claiming that that field of study is a more valid one than the field that concerns the material we consume on a daily basis is seriously screwed up.


This message brought to you by the fact that Star Wars creator George Lucas announced today that his private foundation will give his alma mater, the University of Southern California (USC), $US175 million ($A233.35 million) to endow and rebuild its School of Cinematic Arts in what amounts to the largest donation in USC history.

Meanwhile, my school is being closed down and dissolved into the wider “Arts” (or humanities) faculty, namely the English department. Bye-bye, school dedicated to both practical and theoretical creative arts disciplines.

I think it's one of the potential drawbacks of slash that its very existence to an extent denies the possibility of homoerotic subtext in gen stories.

And yeah, okay, I know all you SPN readers out there will be "wtf! in gen stories they sleep in the same bed and give each other baths ALL THE TIME!" but, okay - frequently I also notice stories posted with notes like "subtexty wincest" or "pre-slash" or "you can read this as slash if you want" or "hints of slash".

In other words. SUBTEXT. Slash's existence potentially excises homoerotic subtext from non-slash stories: because as soon as there's subtext, frequently authors feel they have to re-classify. Which means a whole lot of things, most on the side of the audience reception to the story.

More than a few of the gen stories I really, really love - in this fandom and other fandoms - have strong subtext. That is just subtext. Juicy, homoerotic subtext. Which is satisfying in its own right; something completely other than slash. If I'm looking for slash to read, I won't be satisfied by something that's just subtext. And if I'm reading a gen story about a same-sex partnership, I'd be disappointed - even unsatisfied - if it was strikingly lacking in subtext.

Interestingly problematic division there, I reckon.

Interesting in terms of SPN specifically too; the text itself has such a strong subtext and text of emotional and physical intimacy; a queer reading of it is quite easy. It's fascinating watching people classify their stories as slash or non-slash when they re-create or even emphasise just a little the intimacy that occurs on the show itself.

Here is the transcript of the non-fic/guide/meta piece I recorded for EVP 5: Hunts & Creatures (gen). Follow the link to download the edition. Otherwise, below the cut!

I'm really interested in what listeners think about this kind of non-fic piece in the podcast. No one else stuck their hand up for this kind of thing, so it's really a test run. So, if you listened - feedback!


( Read more... )

Today I watched From Dusk Till Dawn again.

I've now come to the conclusion that Seth and Richie Gecko are actually Dean and Sam Winchester, with the glamour that they're "ghost hunters" filtered out of our view. Yep, they're just delusional psycho killers.

( visual aids to demonstrate similarities )

Though, I have to admit, the idea of Quentin Tarantino playing Sam Winchester appeals to me about as much as that suggestion of David Schwimmer playing Frodo.

Still, the similarities between the bros are quite... creepy. Like, really; you could read FDTD as the Winchesters without the filter of delusion. Richie's blatant hallucinatory state in it could easily be a delusional Sam (it's all falling into place, now...) and Seth has the same talkative performance of the masculinity cliches that Dean does. And the same dynamic, fucked up - All Seth cares about is taking care of Richie, and of course - the money they've heisted.

ETA: and there's this thing in FDTD where Richie is always absently/dopily smooshing his hair forward and his bangs down over his forehead. Seth is always running his hands through it and pushing them back. OH, BROTHERS. TOUCHING. *incoherent glee noises*

I want to write a story where Sam and Dean go looking for El Ray. Or Dean runs into Seth while Sam's at college. Or they run into Kate.

Speaking of Kate - Kat in 1.10 Asylum? is most definitely a Kate ripoff. And there are other shots - of Seth, mainly, that have been lifted and shot with Dean. I LOVE MY SHOW.

Man, there are so many quotes from this film I want to make SPN icons of.


My Season 1 DVDs shipped today. I can't wait til I can watch in full colour and make screencaps of my own! homg!

Well, I've been back into reading lots of theory on pornography this week. As I'm doing this with a mind to writing on fandom, I'm constantly applying the things I'm reading to my fandom experience.

And well, in my fandom experience, it seems as if the iconography or tropes that crop up in NC-17 slash stories aren't straight across the board. Or rather, there are varieties of flavours for different fandoms, certain images crop up more often than others.

So, here's a poll. I've lj-cut it because of the not work-safe language used. That said, ( NC-17 slash afficionados, click here and take my poll! (so to speak) )

Please, PLEASE feel free to comment away! DISCUSS. Go.

PS. feel free to pimp this around if you're interested too.

I was just chatting with lea_ndra on the contradictory readings of Supernatural canon when it comes to how long Sam's been at Stanford.

Four years:
- I believe at one point Sam talks about being gone for four years, yes?
- Which fits in with Stanford's program in which a bachelor degree can be obtained in four years.
- Which, ostensibly, means that Sam in November of 2005 is about to get in to the last semester, and is applying to move on to law school.

Two years:
- Dean says he hasn't spoken to Sam in 'almost two years'
- Not sure of the variations college-by-college and culture-by-culture - Sam could be halfway through his degree, shifting to focus his major on pre-law.
- Eric Kripke has admitted he made a 'mistake', that he meant two years when he scripted in Sam to say four.

So, which one is the 'right' one? Which one is 'canon'? Are these the questions we should be even asking?

My firmest belief of, and joy in, texts and fan/audience readings is that there is no one answer, and there is no one author. Texts take on lives of their own beyond the control of the creator, become fluid and organic.

So by Kripke allegedly slipping up and saying Sam has been at Stanford four years, he's adding an ingredient to the soup that changes the flavour of every spoonful you taste.

- Sam is 22. Four years means he left for college pretty much right after he finished high school.
- Dean hasn't spoken to him for 2 years. This means that Dean had contact with Sam at some time during his first two years of college.
- Four years of college means he's almost obtained a degree - is right no the cusp, nothing half-assed about it.

For me at least, suggesting that Sam has only been at college for two years throws askew a whole lot of elements that have become integral to Sam's characterisation (or at least, my understanding of it):

- Sam is 22. This means he would have left his family for college when he was 20.
- If he finished high school at age 18, this means there are two years there where he's still with his family and not yet at college. Why would Sam do this, especially scholarship-worthy as he is?
- What happens in those two years? Why does Sam decide not to go to college immediately after school? Why does he decide to go to college two years on?
- Sam is still Sammy, a child, when he leaves for college in the four-year slant. He comes back to John and Dean an adult. In the two-year slant, he leaves as an adult.

lea_ndra suggested that in her understanding, the two-year one, Sam's childhood meant he missed out on a lot of schooling and thus finished high school a little later than usual. With this slant, Sam can still move directly from high school to college, but still, Sam still being around with his family at age 20 (instead of age 17-18) is a somewhat different dynamic than teenage!Sammy running off to California. Was his resentment toward John stronger, their fights more bitter due to the fact that Sam wasn't finishing school at the same time 'normal' kids did? or that Sam felt John had even less of a right to treat him as he did given he was no longer a child?


Tiny, tiny things, maybe-mistakes, that make such a huge difference. Is canon something that's defined by what is aired, released into the ether, never to be withdrawn? *can* the creator of a text alter its canon post-release by saying things like "actually, I meant to say two years"?

These questions blur into the slightly problematic (or at least, complex and layered) issues of texts with multiple authors. Scripts have some direction, mainly dialogue; the way an actor performs a scene goes great lengths to establishing meaning and tone in a text, often far beyond what is written. And even what is directed. Eg. Kripke might say there's no sexual innuendo between Sam and Dean, but Jensen Ackles slapped Jared Padalecki's ass when they were filming a scene for 'Bugs' - the fact that Dean slapped Sam's ass is canon, now, it has been released into the ether and copies of the text have spread virus-like. Even if in the DVD Dean's slap had been digitally removed, the DVD would only be another *version* of the text - the 'original' would still exist, on my hard drive at least.

So which is the definitive 'canon'? The show as it was aired? the show as it was re-aired, with Dean calling "Jared!" taken out? The drafts of scripts, the final scripts, the remastered DVDs? the story as the creators tell it in interviews etc? Or is canon an overlap, layers, a veritable lasagne of all these tasty carbohydrate sheets of text? What happens, then, when they're contradictory?

How do you define what's canon when strictly, it's only what's given to you by the text itself? When Sam left for college, how old he was, etc - we can speculate, and make educated guesses, but essentially, whatever we come up with *isn't* going to be canon, because it is never mentioned in the text.

EDIT June 5, 2006:

I've now set up a website to better organise the information originally in this post:

http://supernaturalwiki.com

Feel free use the comments feature on this post to pass on information or corrections relevant to the site!