where do we go from here?

[such_heights]

I know, I know - a week ago I didn't expect my journal to still be All Torchwood All The Time either.

The Scream, by obsessive24
Experimental vidlet. Hi, scars will heal soon.

This is a really exceptional piece of editing, for one thing. And it just feels like this one long, senseless howl, which really says it all.

A Blip In Time by di_br
Ianto has a few things he needs to say before the end.

This is just really fucking sad. I can't watch it all the way through - god, there's this slight change in the music, and I have to hit pause and go away and do something else for a while - but I like di_br's stuff a lot and this is very good.

And now that the dust is beginning to settle, the question I am asking myself is where do I go from here, fannishly? And I'm not sure, but I have come to a few conclusions.

Immediately after Day Five had aired, I wanted to run to greener pastures, to move right away from the thing that had hurt me. I don't want to do that now. Certain exceptions aside, which I'll get to in a moment, fandom this weekend has been amazing. You've made me smile, laugh, cry, nod along, and all in all feel so much better. It's made me realise just how attached I really am to this stupid show, and how much I want to stay. I don't want one story to take a universe away from me.

My feelings about Torchwood continues to feel like a break-up, but that doesn't mean I'll never watch again. If there is a series 4, I might watch for Gwen, because I still love her, but it'll be cautious, removed viewing. The way I watched SGA sometimes, or how I approach BSG now. I don't know if I can watch any of Children of Earth again, though. I was so happy, so hopeful with the first three episodes, and I don't know if I can bear that or not when rewatching. We'll see.

There's been a lot of talk just now because James Moran posted stepping back on his blog. Obviously, the behaviour of some fans has been appalling, the line more of a dot in the distance to them. However, much as I do understand his reaction, I feel like part of what he's saying is that even if I do feel hurt by the show, I'm not allowed to blame the writers for it. I actually don't have any interest in probing the intentions of the writers, and all the talk about RTD is/is not self-hating, etc etc etc, is not something I want to be involved in. But it remains the case that the writing hurt me; the writers' choices hurt me. I feel no desire to let them know that, but there it is.

There's also a lot of discussion also about whether or not Ianto's death is an instance of the Bury Your Gays trope. And, well.

I talked earlier in the week about how happy I was to see that relationship being dealt with more directly, more in-depth. It was being built up like that and it was being incorporated so centrally into Ianto's character because they were going to kill him. And the only reason he died was to fuel Jack's angst - he got refrigerated, a queer version of the usual trope where the girlfriend dies for added manpain. Gwen and Rhys survive, Rhiannon and Johnny survive, because they and their children are important, but Ianto is not, a terribly sad character who could be sacrificed along the way. In Day Five, that really got rammed home. What do we know about Ianto? Maybe nothing at all, except that he was gay for Jack and now he's dead.

Of course other characters suffered, of course that's only a part of an overall picture of bleakness that I still wouldn't have enjoyed if he'd survived, or even if it had been an original series. I can rarely stomach things so hopeless. But it's a thing that really stings.

Stupid me, I guess, stupid naive me. This is a show where people like me can save the world, but they can't be happy, and they can't live to see it. And I'm really pretty unhappy about that.

Look, xtricks said it all much better than me in Bring Out Your Dead.

And I appreciate that other people feel differently about the whole thing for any number of reasons, and I understand and respect that. I am far from The Voice of queer Torchwood fans, nor do I want to be. I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but I'm also expecting not to be dismissed out of hand. Don't make me break out a bingo card on this, is all I'm saying.

Okay, that felt good to write. Where do I go from here? I'm looking forward to finding out.

Comments

[such_heights]

Oh, I completely agree with you, Alice's fate was horrendous. So was Frobisher's and his family's. Like I said, the whole picture was incredibly bleak. Relatively speaking, Ianto didn't have it too bad - dying relatively peacefully in the arms of the one you love? For a Torchwood employee, we get the impression that's pretty be good. It's more about the writers' decision to play into the trope rather than the events of the story as they stand as a whole, if that makes sense.

And I absolutely agree that gay relationships need to be portrayed with the full gamut to be equal, and that's my point: right now, they're not. It's not that no gay character can ever die, that no relationship can end badly, it's just that so many of them do right now, especially in genre TV, especially in film - that is, when they're represented at all. There are exceptions, thankfully, but few and far between, and there is a long, long history of this kind of tragic portrayal being standard or even expected, and I was sad to see Torchwood play into it when they didn't have to.

It's like any stereotype or cliche, really - of course there will be instances when people do actually fit it, or when it suits the story. But the reason it's a stereotype it's because it's been way overdone, and really ought to be avoided.

[slasheuse.livejournal.com]

Oh my god, I just wrote a novel and you've left such a sensible comment. I am a n00b.

[serpentpixie.livejournal.com]

But it was an interesting novel :D
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't have the time to give it the reply it deserves right now, but I'll definitely reply to you later.

[serpentpixie.livejournal.com]

It's more about the writers' decision to play into the trope rather than the events of the story as they stand as a whole, if that makes sense.

Except that, I really don't believe they were playing into any kind of trope with Torchwood. Most decent writers don't deliberately write stereotypes - the first duty of a writer is to serve the story.

It was Ianto's death that pushed Jack far enough that he chose to kill his own grandson and destroy his daughter's life. Jack made that decision because when Ianto died he lost all hope that he (Jack) could ever have a normal life, that he could ever achieve true happiness - and he blamed himself. He blamed himself for Ianto's death, for the fact that Rhiannon had lost her brother and that two children had lost their uncle. He blamed himself for breaking that family - for the death of a fantastic, intelligent young man. People greiving do odd, sometimes crazy things, and so it makes sense (in a stilted kind of way) that Jack chose to break his own family in order to save every other family in the world, to give them the normality he could never have.
If they'd killed Gwen, the effect couldn't have been the same. Losing a friend is not exactly the same as losing a partner. Jack probably wouldn't have been so broken (after all, Suzie, Owen and Tosh dying didn't kill him), and so the outcome wouldn't have been the same - or it wouldn't have been so true to the story. Sure the story could have ended differently, Ianto could have lived, Steven could have lived, but I'm not entirely convinced that it'd be such a powerful ending. The end came directly from the story - in something that leans towards being a thriller, that's kind of essential.
Jack loved Ianto - and their relationship would have gone a long way had Ianto not died, but then the whole of Jack's episode 5 story would be lost, as would the massive parallels between Jack and the Doctor (which were so clearly deliberate).
The only other character whose death might have had the same effect on Jack is Alice, but then Jack killing Steven wouldn't have worked, and her death wouldn't be integral to the story, but outside it (whereas Ianto was killed very much inside the story), so it couldn't have worked.

I just think that, in this case, it's an example of brilliant storytelling. Yes, Jack and Ianto happened to have been gay, and together, but that was sort of beside the point in terms of this show. If Jack had fallen in love with Gwen in earlier series, then it would have been her who died instead.

I think that this makes sense ^^

[such_heights]

I've been staring at this comment box for ages! Okay, I'm going to try a different tack.

I think it's fair to say objectively that Ianto's sexuality was really emphasised right before he died, and that in the course of the story a gay relationship ended in a blaze of doom and despair. Which is the standard way that these things go.

Now, it's entirely possible that the above can be mitigated, if it's an integral part of a story that's worth telling, if the specific context makes it okay. The trouble is, because I absolutely hated where the story went in the end, I don't feel like that. Which is completely personal and subjective! But in means that not only did I get more dead queers bang in the middle of a avidly-watched show, it was in service of a story that went on to do a lot of other things I found far more horrifying to actually watch. So the context isn't exactly mitigating for me, personally.

So, for point one, Children of Earth included a trope that I really hate, and rather than it being in a context that I could accept, it was the start of a final arc that I really didn't like. Obviously I don't expect everyone else to agree with me there, but that's part of why I feel bothered by it.

More generally, I'm sad and disappointed to have lost a major positive portrayal of a gay relationship in sci-fi. It was a sympathetic portrayal in CoE but not a positive one - it wasn't motivated by homophobia or anything, but it also didn't end well, if the distinction makes sense. Nothing was positively portrayed in CoE, mind you, but nonetheless. The whole of Torchwood got taken in a really, really dark direction, and this is one of the consequences. I'm left wishing they hadn't told that story.

As I said, I'm not expecting everyone to share my feelings on it, but I think that's more or less why I feel so disappointed - it's quite tough to articulate, actually, sorry if I'm not being clear.

[serpentpixie.livejournal.com]

I think it's fair to say objectively that Ianto's sexuality was really emphasised right before he died, and that in the course of the story a gay relationship ended in a blaze of doom and despair.

Yes, it was emphasised, and rightly so. Wouldn't more people be kicking up a fuss if their relationship had been shelved to one side?
I'm perplexed because the idea of "star-crossed lovers" has existed in literature since time began - that in itself is a genre/part of a genre, and genres DO play into certain audience expectations. They have to, in order to attract the right audience. That's, like, one of the first things you have to learn when you start writing.
By the way, straight relationships have been ending in doom and despair for thousands of years. I'm fairly sure that Romeo and Juliet didn't get much of a happy ending, and actually it's arguable that such stories show how love is the most powerful of all emotions. Surely then it's a good thing to show that a gay relationship can be equally powerful?

But, I guess, if you didn't like the plot itself, that's a fair enough comment. You're certainly entitled to think that.

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

The objection is less that gay star-crossed lovers exist, but that there are practically no other gay romances. There are thousands upon thousands of straight happy non-dying romances on film, if I choose I could easily watch nothing but. But if I want to watch a gay romance that doesn't end in death and disease... I come up with some examples, mostly because I've spent years tracking down every one I could, but not many, not high profile and rarely done with the budget and talent to make them worthwhile.

[lorannah.livejournal.com]

Except that, I really don't believe they were playing into any kind of trope with Torchwood. Most decent writers don't deliberately write stereotypes - the first duty of a writer is to serve the story.

Sadly though stereotypes are still being repeatedly written, even by decent writers - they don't intend to write them, it's not deliberate but tropes slip in anyway.

And while I'd agree that the first duty of the writer is to serve the story - I think in serving the story it is important for a writer to be aware of tropes and stereotypes and social issues and what's gone before - to decide whether including those things is something that will have positive or negative impact to the story. And yes, sometimes, the right decision might be to use the stereotype but you should be aware of why.

If you're not putting thought into whether you are just retreading old paths - then you're not really giving the story everything it deserves.

[serpentpixie.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure how to articulate my response to this.

Mostly because I think that Ianto's death was a decision based on the type of genre in which the show was being written. Genre is something that a writer will always be aware of, when they are working on something, because genre leads the audience to make assumptions about what they're watching. Trust me when I say that decisions to kill a character are not taken lightly - it has to work for the writer. It isn't flippant, nor is it malicious because writers do not think like that. At least, no writer I've ever met has thought like that, and I know a lot of writers.
I think that Children of Earth pushed Torchwood towards a different genre -- towards, I think, the genre it was supposed to be in the first place. I think, maybe, some people watched it without making the adjustment to the darker genre and they're the ones who got upset about it.


On a side note, out of curiosity, where the hell is this sudden overuse of the word 'tropes' coming from? I'd almost never heard it used in conversation before now.

[lorannah.livejournal.com]

Yes genre is an issue, but it is not the only determining factor - and it is a little disheartening to think that just because I like sci-fi, I should assume it's going to be dark or bleak or hopeless. And the difficulty is that Torchwood was never really those things in previous seasons - so the idea that we should have assumed this was going to be different this time would have been helped by there being some suggestion of that in the build up to the series. Instead in every interview and promotional item I saw leading up to the show, I was told that this was going to be the Torchwood I loved and to quote:- full of "fun, warmth, action, banter, and hot man on man action".

And so maybe I didn't make the adjustment - but I wasn't told I needed to - I didn't know that this was going to be something different until it was too late. I didn't know it was something that I wouldn't like and so I couldn't make a choice before watching whether this was a genre I wanted involvement in. And I really don't know why I need to be convinced that I should have liked it or I'm just not getting it, which has been happening repeatedly. It's my right to dislike the series and to express that and to discuss what I felt was wrong in the series. Just as it is your right to express your different opinion - and I'd like to thank you for doing that in a civilised way - not everyone has on either side of this debate. I will note, however, that there are many many reasons people didn't like COE - boiling it down to we weren't adaptable enough, is a little insulting.

Also I think genres do and should develop and change and become something new sometimes - because otherwise they can go stale. There is opportunity for endless variations within genre.

Trust me when I say that decisions to kill a character are not taken lightly - it has to work for the writer. It isn't flippant, nor is it malicious because writers do not think like that. At least, no writer I've ever met has thought like that, and I know a lot of writers.

I've never said it is or that it was done maliciously. I've killed characters in the past and I know what goes into it. I don't think the writers went into this to hurt people - I think though they have overlooked certain issues that have unintentionally hurt a large number of people. Sadly whatever went into the decision, intent is never the only thing that matters. Just because somebody didn't intend to do something, doesn't mean it didn't occur - it also doesn't mean we should just pretend it didn't happen - we can and should draw attention to these things in the hope that people will consider the issues more fully in the future.

Whatever the writers intended, whatever the needs of the story (and that is certainly debatable and is being debated thoroughly), whatever the genre - this story and the way it was told follows a pattern that has been repeated again and again not just in the mainstream media but in the stories told in Who and Torchwood. In one sense we've been lucky - the shows have provided us with an exceptionally large number of lgbt chaacters for a sci-fi show. But this doesn't mean we should ignore or forgive the fact that with only one exception every single one of the couples portrayed has ended with one partner dead or evil or both. They've made choices to create this pattern - I doubt it's what they wanted, but it is what happened.

Also I presume the word trope has become more used because of the TV tropes website - especially as that website has shown the prevalence of certain themes within media, with variable results.